The author of the given article assumes that if the Mason River is cleaned, its use for the purpose of water sports will definitely increase and hence suggests the local government to spend more money in their annual budget for developing such recreational facilities along the banks of river. His analysis is filled with unwarranted data and fallacious reasoning. The detailed explanation of the flaws in his argument will be done further in the ensuing paragraphs.
The first and foremost reason which renders the author's argument useless is that he has based his hypothesis on a survey conducted for a few residents of the Mason City. As he fails to mention the number of people who took part in this survey, there is a possibility that a major population of the city might not have been included while conducting it. The use of river for water sports depends on various factors such as age, sex, financial situation, health conditions, personal preferences, etc. Hence, it is quite illogical on the author's part to generalize the use of Mason River for water sports just by considering some erroneous data based on choices of some people of the city. If the author had mentioned a complete statistics of the survey and involved all the residents of the city in his research, then his argument could have been more valid.
Secondly, if the river has to be used for river sports it is necessary that the river is calm. If there is too much turbulence in the river, then using it for water sports like swimming and boating could be quite dangerous. The depth of the river should also be less to ensure no casualties happen with the participants of the events. Moreover, one should know about the dangerous aquatic animals living in the river. If the river is inhabited by reptiles such as snakes and crocodiles, then it will definitely be avoided by the people for the recreational activities. The author's argument would have been more convincing if he had mentioned about the flow of the water current of the river.
Lastly, the author believes that if the river is cleaned then it will be used for water sports more frequently by the natives of the Mason City. But, he does not consider the geographical location of the river. It is possible that the river may be flowing through the outskirts of the city, and hence people who live in the main city area might not be able to access it. Moreover, he also does not give detail of the publicly owned lands on the banks of river such as gardens, restaurants, etc. Thus, people might visit these places for their leisure time instead of using the river for the recreational activities. The author's reasoning would have been more logical if he had included the data about the surroundings and location of the river in his study.
Thus to conclude, the argument made by the author is completely unreasonable and lacks coherence and hence fails to convince the readers to use the Mason river for the water sports.
- Essay topic: 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 49
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni 66
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- duplicated to argument 2
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 515 350
No. of Characters: 2405 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.764 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.67 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.507 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.769 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.895 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.394 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.173 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 49, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t and foremost reason which renders the authors argument useless is that he has based h...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 574, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...le for the recreational activities. The authors argument would have been more convincin...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... location of the river in his study. Thus to conclude, the argument made by the a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2461.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 515.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.7786407767 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.763781212 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56455828275 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431067961165 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 780.3 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.1982430599 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.19047619 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5238095238 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267843567354 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0873251082697 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573129087501 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.165434010133 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0358003287793 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.