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 analized argument is used to deduce that, for several reasons, cleaning up Mason River will result in an increase in the use of Mason River for water sports. By the means of a closer look at the sentences of the argument, though, a number of flaws is evident and, because of some logical fallacies and superficial use of some terms, the argument itself is, all being considered, to be deemed incorrect. In particular, some assumptions are not clear and not explained at all, thus resulting in some discrepancies.
To begin with,a considerable number of assumptions are made about the surveys. They are, in fact, used to demonstrate that, because of the highly ranked water sports liked by Mason City residents, if it was not for some then specified problems the use of the river would have been more consistent. As often happens, though, surveys do not directly display the reality of facts: for instance, it is not uncommon that people answer to surveys without real attention to the motivations of the survey itself, often giving wrong or unplausible answers, thus corrupting the trustworthiness of the results. What is more, no clear definition is given about the surveys. What were the other sports? If, for example, the alternative to water sports were really unknown and unusual sports, then it would be wierd not to consider the surveys useless for the aims of the argument (people would have had no other choice in the list rather than water sports).
If, for any reason, the surveys are to be considered compelling and sufficiently proved, there are still many other opaque assumptions. Among the reasons for people not using the river is the smell issue. Once again,some words are not clearly qualified. How many and of which importance are the complaints referred in the argument? Be they just a little number and of ephimeral and minimal natuer, then the whole statement about the spoken noticable increase in the use of the river would not be expected to be true. In the same way, the complaints themselves, reguardless of their number and greatness, are only apparently related to the rarity of use of the rivere. It would be useful to know something more about the assumption that people are not enjoying and using of the river because of the complaints for the smell.
On the other hand, similar considerations have to be made about the last sentence of the argument, namely, that local governments should devote more money for riverside recreational facilities because it will end up in a rocketed up use of the river. Once again, there are no clear links between the two occurrences. In fact, it could be true that the above facilities are already good enough for people to enjoy the river, so that an investment in their budgets would have no concrete results in the use of the river; or, it could be the case that the same facilities have problems that have nothing to do with their budgets. In these circumstances, refuting the assumptions could totally undermine the argument.
To sum up, some disattention in the logical flow of the argument led to a completely incorrect conlusion, a surely wrong derivative that could e a substantial waste of money for local governments. If, though, more data about the surveys and more infos about citizens' complaints and recreational facilities' problems are given, then it could be consistent to align with the argument itself.
| 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 primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
- 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 49
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 92
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not exactly. better to accept that surveys are true.
argument 2 -- not exactly. here 'have been complaints from residents'. we need to argue: residents who complain may not like water sports.
argument 3 -- OK, but more to argue.
--------------------
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 576 350
No. of Characters: 2744 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.899 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.764 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.646 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.182 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.671 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 14, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , a
...some discrepancies. To begin with,a considerable number of assumptions are ...
^^
Line 9, column 216, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , some
...the river is the smell issue. Once again,some words are not clearly qualified. How ma...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, if, look, really, so, still, then, thus, for example, for instance, in fact, in particular, to begin with, to sum up, what is more, in the same way, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2845.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 574.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95644599303 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73935688975 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461672473868 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 894.6 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.22255489022 308% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 82.784208679 57.8364921388 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.318181818 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0909090909 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.09090909091 5.70786347227 142% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.190984458396 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0559156012122 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0607908708661 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106755700236 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413868349069 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 129.0 98.500998004 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.