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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage. While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional increase to the budget.
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up.
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education. The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come from.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more information is required to warrant any action
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-12 | Mishtee Gandhi | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | Kathy_zkx | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-09 | DCAD123 | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | Fortune Quarshie | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-23 | chwj | 80 | view |
- The primary goal of technology advancement should be to increase people s efficiency so that they have more leisure time 58
- The primary goal of technology advancement should be to increase people s efficiency so that they have more leisure time 58
- 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 i 75
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people s efficiency so that they have more leisure time Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 13 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 506 350
No. of Characters: 2565 1500
No. of Different Words: 264 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.743 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.069 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.323 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.738 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.355 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.231 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.459 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.04 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 358, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...rship, Self-development courses usually dont fall in the field of study of a scholar...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...rk together as a team for a project. Although some students find the addition of diff...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 417, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...sions are familiarized with each other. Thus Universities should require every stude...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, similarly, so, thus, while, of course, such as, as a result, on the contrary, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.4196629213 81% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 14.8657303371 67% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 12.9106741573 46% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2553.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 479.0 442.535393258 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32985386221 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99092304477 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524008350731 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 793.8 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 23.0359550562 65% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.3070537009 60.3974514979 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.3548387097 118.986275619 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4516129032 23.4991977007 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61290322581 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.393415617605 0.243740707755 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0925105009773 0.0831039109588 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.144415129025 0.0758088955206 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186393316015 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121295316343 0.0667264976115 182% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.1392134831 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.8420337079 98% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.1743820225 85% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.57 8.38706741573 102% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.2143820225 71% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.