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 given argument has a lot of fallacies in itself. For most, determining that the announcement of clean up will eventually add water sports as a recreational activity may not be completely valid argument to support. Moreover, the whole assumption is based on the survey whose main agenda is not clear.
The whole assumption of given argument is based on the surveys performed on residents of Mason City. It clearly stated that the residents are interested in the water sports as a recreational activities however it fails to show other factors relating to the survey. It doesn’t state about the budgets, the time available and the willingness of residents to maintain the water sports activity if it is added. Furthermore, it doesn’t state by how much of margin water sports has been ranked among their favorite, there might be a possibility of a small marginal different between water sports and other activities. In addition to this it has mentioned how the river is being neglected, hence, the survey doesn’t guarantee that water sports will attract the residents and at the same time residents will take care of the river as a whole and be more attentive to it.
The argument later on goes on assuming that the recent state response to clean up the river will eventually add water sports as a recreational activity. This is based on an illogical assumption. Just cause the river will be cleaned up and maintained cannot be regarded as a guaranteed agreement for addition of water sports. What next can be assumed is how the cleaned water will be maintained. There may be possibilities of more surveys in future, the residents might choose to keep the river as a natural fauna with addition of simple wildlife like goose and birds around the river. An engineered insight is has to be carried out to allow the possibility of adding water sports in the river.
Finally, making a requirement for the government to devote more money for riverside activities is unreasonable. We don’t exactly know how much budget the government already has and if the budget is enough to clean the river itself let alone add water sports. Furthermore, it’s not sure on how much time it will take to clean up the river as it seems to be in a very noisome fragile state and might contain alot of harmful bacterias. Thus the assumption of starting the water sports within this year is unachievable at all. The argument could have focused on future plans rather than a focusing on definitive assumed outcome of governments response and the survey.
Hence, by presuming everything on the basis of very little facts the argument is unwarranted. The argument could have focused more on the current scenarios to derive the presumption rather than stating a guaranteed statement.
| 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 |
- Too much emphasis has been placed on the need for students to challenge the assertions of others In fact the ability to compromise and work with others that is the ability to achieve social harmony should be a major goal in every school 35
- 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 litt 66
- All parents should be required to volunteer time to their children's schools. 62
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 192, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'activity'?
Suggestion: activity
...d in the water sports as a recreational activities however it fails to show other factors ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 439, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...re may be possibilities of more surveys in future, the residents might choose to keep the...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 250, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to clean the river itself let alone add water sports. Furthermore, it's not...
^^
Line 7, column 445, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ight contain alot of harmful bacterias. Thus the assumption of starting the water sp...
^^^^
Line 7, column 676, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of governments response and the survey. Hence, by presuming everything on the ba...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, thus, as to, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97008547009 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82911147214 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440170940171 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 744.3 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5178237875 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.761904762 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2857142857 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04761904762 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.166871356591 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0554605016507 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0414431124743 0.0701772020484 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.090167640069 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0628344638164 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => OK
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: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.