In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fish ing 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

Essay topics:

In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, and fish­ ing) 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.

Mason City is being tasked with a decision: should it invest additional dollars in its budget toward city river clean up? The argument currently calls for the city government to proceed with this effort. However, the argument is predicated on various bold assumptions that must be critically evaluated before the city moves forward. If the following four assumptions prove unwarranted, then Mason City may need to reconsider the validity of this project.
First, the argument assumes that cleaning up the river will increase the frequency of water sports on the river. If this is true, it would make sense to clean up the river. However, the argument could be unwarranted since residents who favor water sports may be enjoying these activities at a different location currently. If residents are enjoying these sports at a different location, such as an ocean or lake, then cleaning up the river may not necessarily drive up the popularity of Mason River for water sports. If this argument proves unwarranted, then it may be a waste of increase in budget for that intended outcome.
In addition, the argument rests on the assumption that increasing the city’s dollars toward river clean up will result in a cleaner river. However, an increase in funds is not enough. Comparing to a real-world example, the Biden Administration just released the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allows billions of dollars for state use in infrastructure revitalization. However, the existence of this money is not enough. State’s need to go through an arduous process of gathering stakeholders, developing a plan, applying for the funds, winning and receiving the funds, and launching a successful project, battling bureaucracy and competing priorities along the way. The Mason City government will experience similar hurdles that may prevent or slow down the use of funds for river clean-up.
Moreover, the argument indirectly asserts that an increase in the use of Mason River for water sports is a favorable outcome that is deserving of city budgetary support. While this is a noble claim, it may not stand to reason. The author of the argument should ask themselves, why is it so important for water sports to increase? In assessing this question, they should also consider whether the weight of the importance of water sports usage on Mason River is more important than other pressing city concerns, such as healthcare, public safety, infrastructure, education, and more. It is important to evaluate this assumption in the context of the broader needs of the community. If there are other pressing needs in Mason City, and especially if funds are tight as they are for many local governments, then it may not be justifiable to increase funding for a non-priority need such as water sports.
Finally, the entire argument is predicated on the assumption that the city government is the best-positioned entity to tackle the issue of cleaning up the river. There may be other reasons to clean up the river besides water sports, such as health reasons. This may even hold more weight than the desire to increase water sports. However, imagine that the root of the uncleanliness of Mason River is a result of a factory upstream that is dumping harmful pollution into the river. The proper authorities to intervene here may extend well beyond the Mason City government and what they are able to accomplish in their purview. In this situation, it would be important to involve the company that is the source of the pollution, as well as the state government, and perhaps even the federal government (e.g., the Environmental Protection Agency). Mason City should perform a root cause problem solving to understand the source of the river’s lack of quality and smell, and only then decide if it is solely best positioned to simply increase its budget. If this is not the case, then the increase of city government funds toward maintaining the river may not be enough.
Maintaining recreational facilities is certainly a noble and justifiable cause, especially when evaluated on its own. Rivers play an important role in the ecosystem and affect people, wildlife, and businesses. The prevalence of the decimation of wildlife in the United States, as well as cancers, can be linked to toxic river pollution. Moreover, the ability to enjoy public spaces and the outdoors is very important for the health of Individuals and communities. However, there are many nuances that must be considered to appropriately allocate public resources. Mason City must evaluate its assumptions regarding the causes and effects of the river’s state, and carefully decide whether the allocation of funds is warranted.

Votes
Average: 6.9 (2 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2023-03-16 abc1238080808 69 view
2022-06-15 leadsbbk 59 view
2020-07-27 Rajat Daga 83 view
Essay Categories

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 131, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...ater sports is a favorable outcome that is deserving of city budgetary support. While this i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, e.g., finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, well, while, in addition, such as, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 93.0 55.5748502994 167% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3927.0 2260.96107784 174% => OK
No of words: 762.0 441.139720559 173% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15354330709 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.25398396302 4.56307096286 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89083424954 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 320.0 204.123752495 157% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419947506562 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1229.4 705.55239521 174% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.1083912813 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.2 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7714285714 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.74285714286 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 26.0 8.20758483034 317% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.25809131657 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.074751083922 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0620969260961 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160326133315 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0387165850224 0.0628817314937 62% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 187.0 98.500998004 190% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 35 15
No. of Words: 763 350
No. of Characters: 3825 1500
No. of Different Words: 309 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.256 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.013 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.796 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 276 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 212 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 155 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 107 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.19 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.286 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.286 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.072 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5