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 argument claims that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities as the use of the river is sure to increase after for these activities. Stated in this way the argument fails to provide key factors, based on which it can be evaluated. The conclusions made by the argument relies upon the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak and not convincing.
First, the argument readily assumes that the river usage will be increased by the residents of manson city for river recreational facilities after it is cleaned. This is a stretch because the argument does not provide any evidence for this statement. Let's take the example of a cricket stadium in the city which is not in use. If the survey of the residents of a city claim that their favorite activity is cricket. It does not mean that repairing the stadium will be used by the residents of the city. We don't have any information on whether there are any other stadium's that people are more interested in using. Clearly, the argument does not provide any information on whether the residents are interested in using the river after it gets cleaned. This argument could have been much clearer if it was explicitly stated that residents are interested in using the river for recreational activities.
Second, the argument claims that the government needs to increase it's year budget as the river will be used for recreational facilities after it is cleaned. This is again a very weak claim with no supporting evidence as the argument does not provide any correlation between the river not being used for the activities and the budget devoted for maintaining activities. Let us consider the example from the previous paragraph. If people are not interested in playing cricket in a stadium. The stadium committee is also not providing any sufficient funds for organizing any cricket event. It does not necessarily imply that people are not interested in using that stadium because of insufficient funds by the committee. There can be some other reason for not using the stadium like, they can be interested in some other stadium which has better facilities. If the argument had provided evidence that people are not using the river because of insufficient funds then it would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument is weak as it does not provide any evidence to validate its claims. The argument does not provide any statistics about the correlation between the usage of the river for activities and the budget devoted to them. It also does not provide any valid reasons whether people are interested in using the river for activities after it is cleaned. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the thinking that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantial claim.
In conclusion, the argument is weak the above-mentioned reasons and it is unconvincing. It could have been strengthened by providing clear evidence that supports the author's claims. To asses any situation it is necessary to have full information about it. As the author fails to provide the information this argument is flawed.
| 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 |
- 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
- The table below gives information about a restaurant’s average sales in three different branches in 2016. 67
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 66
- The table below gives information about a restaurant’s average sales in three different branches in 2016. 61
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville prove that Corporateville is a superior place to live then Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp’s current headquarters. Moreover, M 42
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 538 350
No. of Characters: 2634 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.816 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.896 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.706 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.214 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.641 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.393 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.148 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 74, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... government should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 401, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...n for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak and not convincing...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 252, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...rovide any evidence for this statement. Lets take the example of a cricket stadium i...
^^^^
Line 3, column 328, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tadium in the city which is not in use. If the survey of the residents of a city c...
^^
Line 3, column 506, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e used by the residents of the city. We dont have any information on whether there a...
^^^^
Line 5, column 427, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...he example from the previous paragraph. If people are not interested in playing cr...
^^
Line 9, column 257, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...sary to have full information about it. As the author fails to provide the informa...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, second, so, then, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2681.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 537.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99255121043 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81386128306 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76626899872 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.35009310987 0.468620217663 75% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 864.0 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9592256185 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.75 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1785714286 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.42857142857 5.70786347227 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.157051681726 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0556171995697 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.069693295603 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0988904563478 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0703007886494 0.0628817314937 112% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => 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: 7.17 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.