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.
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river,
but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents, asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2 questions dedicated to river sports.We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a named survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of sculpture due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be affected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water quality and river usage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside
recreational facilities. However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city government to allocate increased funding.
| 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 |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 541 350
No. of Characters: 2619 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.823 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.841 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.598 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.267 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 555, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: We
...h 2 questions dedicated to river sports.We just do not know. Unless the survey is ...
^^
Line 4, column 683, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...can not be used to effectively back the authors argument. Additionally, the author i...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, then, thus, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2691.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 539.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99257884972 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68609121228 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454545454545 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 852.3 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.185879851 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4347826087 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.08695652174 5.70786347227 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24761135556 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0860535947493 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623179053328 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133943251632 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0774075511332 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.