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 states that the government should devote more money for riverside recreational facilities so that more people would use the river for water sports. The author came to this conclusion based on two assumptions which are improving the riverside recreational facilities and cleaning up the river would make more people use the river for water sports and the money that the city park department devoted was not enough and more money is needed. This argument is flawed because it is based on unproved assumptions which I will explore in the following essay.
First, the author assumes that people do not use the river for water sports because of the riverside recreational facilities or because of the the quality of the river water. This assumption is not necessarily right and maybe there are other reasons why the people do not use the river for water sports. It is possible that the river size is small and not good for water sports or maybe the people prefer to do water sports in closed places not in the pubic on the river. In this case improving the quality of the river water and the riverside recreational facilities will not make more people use the river.
Second, the argument assumes that the money that the city park department devoted was not enough to improve the riverside recreational facilities. This assumption is not supported by any evidence. maybe that money was enough and no money was needed so devoting more money could be used to create riverside recreational facilities that already was there and no more people would use the river. The author did not give information about how much money they need and if the old money was enough or not.
In order to make the argument stronger the author have to provide more information about why the Mason city residents do not use the river for water sports and how much money is needed to improve the river and how this money will be used.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it is based on unproved assumptions which need more information to make stronger. The first assumption is improving the water of the river would make more people use it for water sports. The second is that more money is needed to improve the riverside recreational facilities.
| 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 |
- Knowing that the percentage of positive reviews increased 50
- Claim Group assignments that students must work together to complete should replace a substantial amount of traditional lecture based instruction in college and university courses Reason It is vital for students to gain experience collaborating with peers 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 littl 50
- art work must have meaning which most people can understand 50
- sea otter of the Neighboring Eastern Carpenteria 58
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 386 350
No. of Characters: 1832 1500
No. of Different Words: 113 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.432 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.746 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.472 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 111 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 72 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.452 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.499 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.687 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.205 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...e recreational facilities or because of the the quality of the river water. This assump...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 141, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...e recreational facilities or because of the the quality of the river water. This assump...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: PUBIC_X[1]
Message: Did you mean 'public'?
Suggestion: public
...ater sports in closed places not in the pubic on the river. In this case improving th...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 199, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Maybe
...ption is not supported by any evidence. maybe that money was enough and no money was ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, second, so, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1868.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 386.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.83937823834 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43248042346 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50978380317 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 118.0 204.123752495 58% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.305699481865 0.468620217663 65% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 605.7 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2643020115 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.533333333 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7333333333 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.73333333333 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.210012048854 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0958963602633 0.0743258471296 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0731148322708 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145134860355 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0494399075679 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.64 8.32208582834 80% => OK
difficult_words: 43.0 98.500998004 44% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.