The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.
"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."
In the given passage, the author has concluded that the city government must devote more money to the year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. He has based this on the fact that, the State has recently announced its plans to clean up Mason River. A major weak point in his argument, is that he has based this conclusion, on the assumption, that the major cause for the dearth in water sport activities, is the poor quality of water, and the foul smell. .
The author's assumption is fundamentally incorrect. The assumption implies that the residents rarely used the river for water sport activities, solely because it was unclean, and smelled bad. There may have been several other factors due to which the river may not have been used, such as the following:
Firstly, there might have been several life threatening creatures in the water, such as crocodiles, or alligators. How do we know that this wasn't the reason for the lack of water sport activities in the river? If this were true, the state's plan to clean up the river may not have any effect on the number of people participating in water sport activities in the same water body. The people are obviously going to be more concerned with their own safety than enjoying water sports.
Secondly, the author believes that the modicum of water sport participation in this river, was due to the several complaints handed in by residents, regarding the quality of the water, and the river's smell. What if these complaints were sent by people who were not interested in water sport activities. These complaints might have been purely for aethetic reasons, and for health concerns. Thus, the author is looking at the issue from a completely incorrect angle.
Therefore, in order to strengthen his argument, and make it more cogent, the author must provide us with several proofs. First he must prove that the quality of water and the smell were the main reason for the dearth in water sport activities in the river. He must also prove that devoting more money towards the riverside recreational facilities, is the best way to ameliorate the condition of the river. And finally he must link this improvement in quality with the 'supposed 'increase in water sport activity here.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 464, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...r quality of water, and the foul smell. . The authors assumption is funda...
^
Line 5, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ater, and the foul smell. . The authors assumption is fundamentally incorrect. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 141, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...or alligators. How do we know that this wasnt the reason for the lack of water sport ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1882.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.95263157895 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58354390851 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489473684211 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 575.1 705.55239521 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
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.722645595 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.705882353 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3529411765 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41176470588 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.163861584876 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.056670496558 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0389448180234 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0971344353171 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.015606707167 0.0628817314937 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.73 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.