In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes little of its budget to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For years there have been complaints from residents about the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. In response, the state has recently announced plans to clean up Mason River. Use of the river for water sports is, therefore, sure to increase. The city government should for that reason devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Mason river flows through the city and there have been complaints regarding the quality of the water and the river's smell. So states have announced that they plan to clean up the river and this will increase the usage of the river for water sports. So, the city government should allocate more budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Quite a few assumptions are made here.
First of all, Just by cleaning up river will increaser the river usage for water sports is a blind assumption. There could be multiple reasons which can lead to the increased usage of the river for water sports than just cleaning up the river. There can be no other entertainment in Mason city such as Malls and play areas. Mason city could be lacking in amusement water parks which could be the reasons which are driving people to the Mason riverside. If there are no other recreational activities in Mason city, residents of the city will obviously be inclined in using what is nearest to them which is the Mason river as it flows through the city.
The second Assumption is based on the survey it is said that Mason city residents rank water sports high among their favorite recreational activities. Here question that comes to my mind is, How authentic is this Survey? And how many people were surveyed? If it is only in hundreds then it can be certainly said that the entire city is inclined towards water sports and water related recreational activities. There can be other entertainment recreational activities the majority of Mason City residents would be liking. For example Movies, Malls, Amusement parks, etc.
The government should consider all of the above statements to decide whether it should devote more money to water recreational activities. And the government should also think if there are any other recreational sports or activities that can be more profitable for Mason City’s growth and useful to Mason City residents such as making big parks or malls.
So because of the above assumption, this argument fails to make a valid reason to increase more money for riverside recreational activities.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-12 | Mishtee Gandhi | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | Kathy_zkx | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-09 | DCAD123 | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | Fortune Quarshie | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | chwj | 80 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
- The graph below shows the proportion of the population aged 65 and over between 1940 and 2040 in three different countries Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main feature and make comparisons where relevant 67
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve the problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 50
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 60
- The bar chart below shows US seafood imports for 1986 1996 and 2016 and the forecast for 2026 The pie chart shows the geographical structure of these imports in 2016 Summarise the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make compariso 79
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 353 350
No. of Characters: 1717 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.335 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.864 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.589 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 100 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 73 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.577 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.561 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 510, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... majority of Mason City residents would be liking. For example Movies, Malls, Amusement p...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 32, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... etc. The government should consider all of the above statements to decide whether it s...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, regarding, second, so, then, for example, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1761.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 353.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.98866855524 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64555262877 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.453257790368 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 552.6 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.6463681666 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.8333333333 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6111111111 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44444444444 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.425726803502 0.218282227539 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.144088375871 0.0743258471296 194% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112375522125 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.199187210762 0.128457276422 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.129442476639 0.0628817314937 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 98.500998004 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.