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.
Recently, the state has started plans to devote an increased amount of funds to the Mason city river. Regarding this issue, the author of the argument concludes that cleaning up the river and increasing funds is sure to increase the use of the river for water sports. Though the underlying issue may have merit, because of a lack of relevant evidence, unaddressed assumptions, and vague terminology, the author's argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
The author assumes that use of the river for water sports is due to the lack of cleaning, and funding the River gets. However, there is no such proof that funding will miraculously bring people to the river, let alone participate in water sports. It is plausible that the reason residents do not use the river for water sports is due to the fact that it is in close proximity to a waste and disposal plant, or near a chemical refinery. If this were true, the increased funds for the river would not coax people to use the river. Thus, the proposed solution will fail regardless.
In the statement from the author, surveys were analyzed and determined that water sports are among the favorite recreational activities. Surveys are unreliable, biased, and do not account for everyone in a population. If all residents put their input of their honest opinions on recreational activities at the Mason city river, then the surveys could be regarded as a more viable source of information. However, it is impossible to ensure that increasing funds is sure to increase the use of the river for watersports. Not everyone can participate or will choose to fish, swim, boat, etc. There are many other possibilities that cannot be factored.
Some merit can be given to the author's argument if he included evidence that people have agreed to use the river for water sports if funds increased. For instance, if people were to be held acountable by collecting a down payment from them, there is a higher chance that use for the river for water sports will increase if money is put into the river.
It casts no doubt that the argument the author states is flawed, due to numerous outlandish assumptions and flaws in reasoning to be an acceptable argument. More work is paramount in order to support the author's reasoning.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-26 | jason123 | 59 | view |
| 2020-01-20 | Ammu helen | 16 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | ramji90 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-13 | shekhawat24 | 49 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position 54
- 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 littl 59
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 1838 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.749 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.62 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.178 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...assumptions, and vague terminology, the authors argument is unsubstantiated and deeply ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 361, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'proximity'.
Suggestion: proximity
...sports is due to the fact that it is in close proximity to a waste and disposal plant, or near ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ored. Some merit can be given to the authors argument if he included evidence that p...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, for instance, no doubt
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1889.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8811369509 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71311184858 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475452196382 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9803200397 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.944444444 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72222222222 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.277263617138 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894777818849 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07108344959 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153272273967 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0983108902739 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.02 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.