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.
In the essay the author has come to the conclusion that the state’s recent plan to clean up Mason River will increase the use of the river for water sports and also the government should increase its budget for the riverside facilities. This is premised from a survey conducted among residents of Mason City of which they ranked water sports among their favourite recreational activities. The author’s claims relies on assumptions that are not supported by compelling evidence which makes for a weak argument.
To begin with the survey, the author reports city resident’s love for water sports. It is not clear however the scope and validity of the survey. Could it be that only residents around the river that were surveyed. Or residents were asked to choose between a having a dam built on the river or water sports of which they were swayed by the water sports. The survey could have been dedicated to only 2 games, water sports or indoor games. Perhaps, residents choice of watersports as their favourite game is because they love to watch the game and not actively participate. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid and reliable, it cannot be used to support the author’s arguments.
Secondly, the assumption that the use of the river will increase after the clean up cannot be determined yet. If the river’s quality and smell results from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality is caused by the pollution of factories along the banks of the river, then this may be remedied. However, if the quality and smell is caused by the mineral deposits and life in the water, then there is little that can be done about the situation. A clean-up would not affect this situation. Consequently, a clean up will not guarantee an increased usage of the river.
Finally, the author suggests that the government should devote more money in this year’s budget to the riverside recreation facilities with the assumption that the government has adequate money in its budget to support this project without considering the other projects of the state.
In conclusion, the author’s argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed in his desire to have an increased budget for riverside facilities. His arguments does not justify to request. If the author is able to give further evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to increase the spending on the facilities.
| 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 order to become well rounded individuals all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry novels mythology and other types of imaginative literature 50
- 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 68
- As a result of numerous consumer complaints of dizziness and nausea Promofoods requested that eightmillion cans of tuna be returned for testing last year Promofoods concluded that the cans did not after all contain chemicals that posed a health risk This 58
- Educators should find out what students want included in the curriculum and then offer it to them 83
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 421 350
No. of Characters: 2020 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.53 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.798 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.542 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.048 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.078 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2086.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95486935867 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69177214788 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472684085511 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 644.4 705.55239521 91% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9124903601 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.3333333333 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0476190476 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52380952381 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.230189303878 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.067415610514 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.080483761477 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120623434019 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110828790954 0.0628817314937 176% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.19 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.