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.
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.
The author of the argument stated above comes to the conclusion that Mason City shoud devote more money to riverside recreational facilities. This is due to the fact that the city is planning on cleaning up the Mason River so that it no longer receives complaints about the water quality or smell. While the conclusion is currently valid, the author forgot to consider two unwarrented assumptions that may have an impact on the number of recreational activities conducted on the river. The author seems to believe that water quality and smell are the only factors at play in the revitilization of the Mason River while more such as geographical and natrual factors may be at play.
First, the author assumes that the only reason people aren't utilizing the river is due to water quality and smell. How do we know that there are not a vast amount of other facts at play that are stopping residents from utilizing the river? Perhaps there is lake or river that is closer to the vast majority of residents, so they choose to perform their recreational activities there. It is known that individuals like to perform their favorite activities by driving the shortest amount of distance possible. Also, suppose that the Mason River is also home to a diverse amount of dangerous animals, such as piranhas and alligators. It would make sense for residents to perform their recreational activities at a safer lake or river. If we assume that these assumptions are correct, it significantly weakens the conclusion that more money should be devoted to Mason River recreational activites. The extra money would thus be wasted without the number of recreation water users increasing.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the geography of the Mason River is suitable for water sports to begin with. Disregarding water quality and smell, there are other factors that stop individuals from using certain water sources for recreation. Perhaps the Mason River is only composed of class five rapids that have been known to injure, or even kill people who attempt to white-water raft. Furthermore, this implies that the river is not safe to swim, boat or fish in as well. Also, the River may be hard to reach in the first place. If we assume that the river has high cliffs and no bridges, it is very unlikely that residents will be able to make their way into the river anyway. These hypotheticals illustrate the fact that geographical reasons may be a cause as to why residents are not using the Mason River for recreational activities. Assuming that these conditions are true, the argument to devote money to the river is thus weakened further. The increased water quality would not warrant more recreational activities as the river is now dangerous and impossible to get to.
In conclusion, the authors argument and conclusion that Mason City should spend more money on the Mason River is severely flawed. In order for the argument to become more viable, it is important to request more information. Perhaps through the work of a research, scientific or geographical study we can discover why people are not utilizing the river, whether it is due to location, wildlife or other factors. The obtainment of this information has the possibility of strengthing the conclusion that more money should be devoted to the river, as long as the catalyst issue is easily correctable.
| 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 |
- Most of the money devoted to basic scientific research should be instead diverted to applied scientific researchRespond to the above topic by composing an essay that states how much you agree or disagree with the given claim. Be sure to use evidence to su 83
- Write a response to the following argument that analyzes its stated or implied assumptions, reveals how the argument’s position depends on the assumptions, and explains the effect of any flawed assumptions on the argument’s validity.“The following a 55
- Because society is always changing laws should always change to reflect the times as well In addition laws should be open to interpretation based on the facts of each individual circumstance Write an essay in response to the following statement in which y 45
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 70
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 565 350
No. of Characters: 2743 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.875 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.855 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.674 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.607 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 55, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...hor assumes that the only reason people arent utilizing the river is due to water qua...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ible to get to. In conclusion, the authors argument and conclusion that Mason City...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, first, furthermore, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, thus, well, while, as to, in conclusion, such as, to begin with, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2806.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 564.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97517730496 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87326216964 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73543350292 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.421985815603 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 897.3 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9610600541 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 112.24 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.56 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => 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: 0.286103813723 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0889338746983 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545626086194 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184369136534 0.128457276422 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0423594552577 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.