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.
The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.
However, even if the writer of the arguement is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used more by the city's residents, the arguement does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money to them.
According to the arguement, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.
If the city government alloted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | jason123 | 59 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | Ammu helen | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | ramji90 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | shekhawat24 | 49 | view |
- Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's field of study. 50
- Nowadays many countries have very cosmopolitan cities with people from all over the world. How can the government ensure that all these people can live together harmoniously? 56
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 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 littl 53
- According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies that in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies a 23
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 8 15
No. of Words: 260 350
No. of Characters: 1257 1500
No. of Different Words: 121 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.016 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.835 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.587 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 71 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 51 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 38 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.124 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.518 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.774 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.226 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 55.5748502994 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1293.0 2260.96107784 57% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 260.0 441.139720559 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97307692308 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68873114088 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 126.0 204.123752495 62% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484615384615 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 411.3 705.55239521 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 8.0 19.7664670659 40% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 50.7073404449 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 161.625 119.503703932 135% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 23.324526521 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.0 5.70786347227 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279378723376 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.148028896395 0.0743258471296 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0318772144657 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.180243622842 0.128457276422 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0224763068688 0.0628817314937 36% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.14 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 45.0 98.500998004 46% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => 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.