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 is flawed for various reasons. Primarily, it makes an unwarranted claim about the ranking of water sports as favorite recreational activites among the residents of Mason city.
The argument is based on a survey result but it does not provide any details about the survey. For example, it may happen that the survey was conducted on a summer season during which period people like the water sports most compared to the other recreational activites. So, as soon as the summer is over and winter will come then people may choose other recreational activites apart from water sports when the water of the river turns into ice. Again, the age level on which the survey was conducted is a vital factor. Choices of recreational activities are not same for all ages. For example, football is a popular recreational activity for young people but not for old person. At the same time, the location of people on which the survey was conducted is also an important factor. People living near river may choose water sports but not the people living in the center of the city. Had the argument placed details about the survey only than the argument would have been more valid. Secondly, the argument assumes that after ceaning up Mason River use of the river for water sports is going to increase. But as we know taste of human changes over time and for this there is no certainity that use of the river for water sports is certainly going to increase.
However, it is also possible that after cleaning up the river the environment will become not friendly for fishes and the population of the fish will decline and this will affect fishing as a water sport. There is also possibility that the time when the survey was conducted it was a vacaction time and in the future there is vacation ahead and for this use of the river for water sports is not going to increase.
Finally, there is no details about the source of bad smell of water in the river. It may happen that bad smell is spreading from the boats and the wastage people leave while swimming. So, there is certainity that cleaning the river is not going to work at all.
The argument is wrong becasue it makes some unwarranted assumptions.
| 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 |
- It is more enjoyable to have a job where you work only three days a week for long hours than to have a job where you work five days a week for shorter hours 66
- At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support. 73
- Some people believe that citizens can most benefit their communities by contributing timeand resources to volunteer efforts (e.g., town cleanups, youth sports leagues, food andclothing drives). Others believe that a community is better served when most of 50
- Discussing controversial topics with those with contrasting views is not useful because very few people change their mind when questioned about their core beliefs. 58
- Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve. Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment. 66
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 1777 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.568 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.311 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.474 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.774 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 821, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to water'
Suggestion: to water
...or. People living near river may choose water sports but not the people living in the...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 11, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no details'?
Suggestion: there are no details
...s is not going to increase. Finally, there is no details about the source of bad smell of water ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, may, second, secondly, so, then, while, apart from, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1818.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 389.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.6735218509 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.37127823368 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 161.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413881748072 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 580.5 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.2065655793 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.6842105263 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4736842105 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.84210526316 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.239922703004 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0785184609334 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0575533176675 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.127610166517 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0794677548638 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.81 12.5979740519 78% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.23 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.