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 city government has been suggested to increase the amount of money in this year's budget for riverside recreational facilities, so that they can clean up the Mason River for water sports purposes. The author has reached this conclusion based on surveys conducted among the residents of Mason City, as well as complaints about the low water quality and odor made by the residents. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
To begin with, does cleaning alone ensure the full utilization of the river? In other words, can cleaning alone be considered the primary factor outweighing other surrounding factors when it comes to promoting the use of the river for recreational facilities? It is possible that Mason City has other water bodies that are already operational for water sports, and residents may be accustomed to using those for their recreational activities. Furthermore, cleaning alone cannot guarantee the permanent removal of low water quality and odor. There could be situations where sewage pipes are connected to the river, or riverside residents may continue to dump garbage into the water. In any of these cases, cleaning would only provide a temporary solution. If any of these scenarios hold true, the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
In addition to this, will the additional funds be utilized properly for the cleaning purpose? The authors in the argument make a premature assumption that simply increasing the budget and allocating it towards cleaning will solve everything. However, this may not necessarily be the case. There could be a lack of a proper plan, insufficient expertise, or even a shortage of honest employees to handle the funds effectively. If any of these situations are true, then the argument does not hold water.
After that, was the conclusion based on a rational survey? The author assumed that Mason City residents selected several water sports as their favorite hobbies in surveys. However, there is no information provided about the percentage of the data size, sample size, or the number of residents who participated in the survey. It is possible that only a minimal percentage of the local population mentioned water sports as their favorite leisure activities. In light of these facts, an increase in the budget amount may not benefit the entire community, weakening the conclusion in the argument.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flowed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the three question above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the purposed recommendation to add the money to this year’s budget.
| 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 |
- 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 63
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 455 350
No. of Characters: 2325 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.619 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.11 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.811 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.682 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.735 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.283 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.283 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.047 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, may, so, then, well, in addition, in conclusion, as well as, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2384.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 455.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23956043956 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61852021839 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89047672431 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50989010989 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.9301295814 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.363636364 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6818181818 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.27272727273 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234500213419 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664927279664 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0863521071 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128199074337 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0877620993795 0.0628817314937 140% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.83 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.