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 author has made a rather bold statement by declaring that water sports in the Mason City would undoubtedly and inevitably increase if the authorities act on the complaints of the denizens of Mason City and clean the stinking and dirty Mason River. On the first glance, this argument seems rather immune to any criticism but a closer look reveals an assortment of faulty assumptions supporting the claim, rendering the entire claim to be precarious and standing on wobbly grounds.
The main issue with the argument is having an unquestionable claim on the acceptance of a cleaned Mason River for water sports by the civilians. What if the existing spots of water sports are at the heart of the city and offer facilities and accoutrements which even a sparkling Mason River cannot offer. Location of such places play a vital role in their popularity as no one likes to travel long distances regularly. Moreover, the efficacy of city park department would play a vital role in deciding how quickly they are able to clean an entire river fit for water sports. What if the department is full of feckless people who delay all their work and do not like anything which is not perfunctory? Even though the state has announced that the cleaning of Mason River but have not mentioned a deadline which only supports my above claim.
With all the thought-provoking questions which can easily put the city government planning to devote extra money to the budget of riverside recreational facilities in quandary is another flagrantly specious claim of water sports being one of the favorites among the denizens. No information has been provided on the scope of the survey – how many people participated, what was the range of their age, the sex ratio of the participants and other critical statistical information required to form an unflagging opinion of the masses. What if the survey fails to cover 1 percent of the population? It is also important to draw a line between a wish and a will to act. What if the citizens love the idea of a clean Mason River where they could enjoy water sports but are reluctant to actually visit a new place and abandon the one in which they currently boat, swim or go fishing. How many people wish to have a slender, svelte body and how many of them actually hit the gym daily and act on it? Well, all of us would love to be healthy but hardly anyone goes to the gym regularly. In addition to all this, if the department of has decided to take action after so many complaints from the people, it is unlikely that people would actually put their trust on anything which the government does and continue with their usual spots without ever trying out the Mason River for water sports.
To conclude, I feel the city government should take the results of the survey with a grain of salt and ask for more comprehensive and thorough survey. It is also important to ensure that the river is not flowing in some hinterland of Mason City and is inaccessible to most of the people for regular use. Therefore, the government needs to deliberate on this issue further and take any action only on the basis of evidences which are more concrete.
| 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 |
- lorem ipsum 33
- If you could change one important thing about your hometown, what would you change? Use reasons and specific examples to support your answer. 90
- "As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate." 94
- "A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the adver 59
- 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 69
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 554 350
No. of Characters: 2568 1500
No. of Different Words: 269 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.852 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.635 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.594 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.539 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 253, Rule ID: ON_FIRST_GLANCE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'at'?
Suggestion: At
...ean the stinking and dirty Mason River. On the first glance, this argument seems r...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, if, look, moreover, so, therefore, well, i feel, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2616.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 555.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 4.71351351351 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64236921872 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 204.123752495 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484684684685 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 828.9 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.4668672524 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.684210526 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2105263158 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.63157894737 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.298958662889 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0879806033491 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0817802689893 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189685850971 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0204894527758 0.0628817314937 33% => 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: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.63 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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.