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 the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Considering the residents' preference for water sports reflected by surveys, and the little budget devoted to maintaining riverside recreational facilities, the author suggests the government devote more money to these facilities. This conclusion, though seems convincing at first glance, still needs to evaluate since some assumptions it is based on are now unproved.
To begin with, the author assumes that all the Mason City residents' favorite sports are water sports according to the surveys. Since the author failed to list the purview of these surveys, we can not affirm that this result reflects all citizens' preferences. If these surveys are made according to the answer of only a few people, many others maybe not be interested in water sports at all, and that might be the true reason why the Mason River is rarely used for water sports. In such a situation, devoting more money to riverside recreational facilities can be meaningless.
Assuming that citizens can only play water sports in riverside recreational facilities, the author believes the residents now have no place to play water and thus suggests the city park devote a budget. However, even most of the residents prefer water sports more than other sports, riverside recreational facilities might not be necessary for them. Without a certain amount of other water-playing facilities, such as swimming pools, we can not confidently ascertain this assumption. If evidence shows there are many other facilities in which citizens can do water sports, the better riverside recreational facilities may not attract more residents and thus the recommendation can be groundless then.
Moreover, the author mentions the plans to clean up Mason River. According to the complaints about the quality of the river's water and smell, the author simply assumes that such a noisome smell and bad water quality is the only reason why people are unwilling to play in the riverside recreational facilities. If so, then after cleaning up the river these facilities might become welcomed and thus should be strongly supported financially. However, the other reasons, for instance, the dangers of playing near the river, also influence the citizens. Besides, we do not know whether the plans will be done efficiently. If the river is still not a good place for residents to play water sports, then devoting more money to riverside recreational facilities can be a waste of budget.
In conclusion, although this argument is supported by some information and looks well-constructed because some assumptions it relies on are unevaluated now and can be unwarranted, the recommendation might be groundless.
| 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 |
- 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 53
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed Reading Course has greatly improved productivity One g 58
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy At the same time manufacturers are now marketing many home applianc 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2184 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.2 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.856 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.706 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.119 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'residents'' or 'resident's'?
Suggestion: residents'; resident's
Considering the residents preference for water sports reflected b...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, still, then, thus, well, for instance, in conclusion, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2242.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3380952381 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94965696149 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.454761904762 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 693.9 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2672024606 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.882352941 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7058823529 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229761851847 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0847227939159 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07516990773 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131809073002 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0800306297931 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.99 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.