Author of this passage offers to increase funding of riverside recreational facilities based on several assumptions about current river usage and resident’s attitude towards river sport activities. While provided assumptions seems logical, approval of author’s proposal require more information and thought.
First of all, author states that in surveys Mason City citizens high rank water sport as recreational activity. However, the scope and validity of those surveys are unclear. How many citizens went through the survey? Are they from different demographic groups? What was the wording of the question? For example, it is possible that in whole survey took part only those who live near river, which makes the survey not representative in expressing position of all citizens. Without confirmation that surveys were representative, it cannot effectively state author’s argument.
Additionally, author implies that Macon City residents are rarely using Mason River due to low budget of current recreational facilities and low quality of the water. There is no strong support for those statements, as amount of the budget devoted to maintaining riverside recreational facilities is not revealed and there is no confirmation that this amount is not enough. Low river quality and smell can be a factor for citizens not to use river for recreational activity, but author does not support these implication with valid data. Though there have been complaints, we don’t know were they from wide range of people or only from several activists? Author could support his/her proposal by conducting a representative survey about reasons that drove residents away from using Mason River.
At last, author suggest that cleaning up river for sure will increase use of river for sport activities. This implication may not be true as we don’t have full information about other factors influencing river usage. For example, river may be not suitable for water sport at all or other better water facilities already exist near Mason City. In this case, cleaning Mason River will not increase its usage and devoting more money in riverside recreational facilities is not essential for city.
Although, idea of investing money into riverside activities may be beneficial for city and its citizens, author’s argument does not provide a full analysis of current situation and more information is required in order to warrant any action.
- “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 complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station’s coverage of l 70
- The increasing rapid pace of life today causes more problems than it solves 50
- According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies a 58
- The following is a recommendation from the personnel director to the president of Acme Publishing Company."Many other companies have recently stated that having their employees take the Easy Read Speed-Reading Course has greatly improved productivity. One 54
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned wit 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 503, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this implication' or 'these implications'?
Suggestion: this implication; these implications
...l activity, but author does not support these implication with valid data. Though there have been...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, while, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2076.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 377.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50663129973 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4064143971 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93524308672 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519893899204 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 666.0 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.1148406953 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.263157895 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8421052632 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.47368421053 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.275070539623 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0886607967816 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0798366544451 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146597491865 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620696267157 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.27 48.3550499002 73% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
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.