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.
While it may be true that the poor quality of the river and the little amount of the riverside recreational facilities will decrease the possibilities that people use it to do water sports. To support this conclusion, the author cited an obscure survey, presented a weakened relative phenomenon and made an ostensible conclusion that cleaning up the river and devoting more money to the riverside recreational facilities are sure to increase use of the river for water sports. The author’s demonstration is fraught with dubious assumptions, making the conclusion unconvincing.
The survey in Mason City residents about their favorite recreational activities is not persuasive. Generally, a scientific and reasonable survey should not set any limits to the volunteers, otherwise we may acquire the unprecise and even wrong information which can lead to a wrong conclusion. There are no details about this survey to prove its accuracy and authenticity. Actually, if we design a similar questionnaire with options: swimming, boating, fishing and basketball, the majority of these residents may choose basketball as their favorite sports, this means maybe the residents do not like water sports at all, they just are loath. The author still needs more evidence to strengthen the validity of this survey.
When it comes to the complaints from the residents, it cannot be the proof that there is a sever pollution which causes the restricted use of the river and with the river becoming clean, use of water sports will increase. The specific amount of complaints are as important as the proportion of these residents, we need these to know the real status of the river. Besides, assuming the river is cleaned, if the residents more like to do water sports indoors, there won’t be any rise of use of the river for water sports. In fact, the residents may prefer the indoor water sports and probably only few people complain about the quality and smell of the river. The author needs more direct evidence to support his point.
As for the solution the author suggests, it implies that the riverside recreational facilities have a positive correlation with the use of the river for water sports. It’s not cogent to assert an unchecked relationship between two entities. The author provides no evidence but his assertion as the foundation of his conclusion. If most of the residents prefer to play at riverside rather than water sports, then devoting more money to these facilities could be a totally wrong decision. The author’s process of demonstration is fraught with assertive assumptions, the correct analysis needs adequate evidences.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that cleaning the river and devoting more money to riverside recreational facilities can increase use of the river for water sports, though the author’s statement may refer to some objective incidents. To prove the author’s conclusion, it can be a good choice to use a more detailed, scientific and strict way without any assertions which have no basis.
| 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 |
Comments
this examination is not
this examination is not difficult, but we must be careful about the body's writting especially when you write the reason against the author, one of these point, the complaints, is not very easy to write, so we can put less energy on it and combine it with our assumptions to expand our description, then there should be more diversities when we make a sentence, try to use parenthesis to make your composition more comprehensible.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
While it may be true that the poor quali...
^^
Line 1, column 307, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...a weakened relative phenomenon and made a ostensible conclusion that cleaning up ...
^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s, making the conclusion unconvincing. The survey in Mason City residents about...
^^
Line 2, column 296, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'There are no details'?
Suggestion: There are no details
...n which can lead to a wrong conclusion. There is no details about this survey to prove its accuracy...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...trengthen the validity of this survey. When it comes to the complaints from the...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... direct evidence to support his point. As for the solution the author suggests,...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ect analysis needs adequate evidences. To sum up, the author fails to substanti...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, if, may, so, still, then, while, as for, in fact, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2580.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 494.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22267206478 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95915415102 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441295546559 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 810.0 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.8145880485 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.0 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.15 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218157069812 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.070195120947 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0784423964322 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126273640098 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391209920022 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.