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.
<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">The argument that the passage make is that government should budget of riverside recreational facilities since the residents' favorite recreational activity is water sports if the Mason River </span>is cleaned<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">.
The author assumes that </span>the fact that<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> residents were rarely using Mason River riverside recreational facilities and the fact that they complained about the river water quality and smell are effect and cause </span>respectively<span style="font-size: 19.36px;">. However, without any evidence to support this assumption, this can become a classic textbook example of 'correlation implying causation' mistake. To rephrase, just because the two events </span>occured<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> simultaneously need not mean that they are even related to each other, for instance it could be the case that the part of the Mason River flowing through the city might be too dangerous or completely unsuited for riverside recreational activities and so is not used for recreational activities. The argument thus is deeply </span>impacted<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> by this assumption and if it </span>is found to be<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> wrong and thus low participation in riverside recreational activities is not due to bad condition of the river but some other </span>factor<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> </span>then<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> cleaning the river will not increase use of the facilities, though it might be very beneficial for the residents health.
The argument mentions that the city government should increase investment in riverside recreational facilities. The underlying assumption is that there is not enough investment already done on it and that the </span>additional<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> budget will increase residents' participation in riverside recreational activities. It could be the case that if more investments </span>are made<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> to change the basic infrastructure and it is not up to the residents' tastes then </span>the use of<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> the facilities might go even further down. Thus the assumption that increase in budget will increase use of facilities can inversely affect the intended purpose if found </span>to be<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> wrong.
The argument justifies increasing budget for the facilities based </span>soley<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> on the prediction that use of river for water sports is sure to happen. If due to some unpredictable reason such as drastic weather or sudden economic downfall the facilities </span>are compromised<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> then the increased investment would be wasted. The </span>large scale<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> decisions of the level of city cannot be made by assuming that one of the predictions involved is sure </span>to be<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> true since there is little evidence ex ante to </span>determine<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> </span>the valuation of<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> expected loss and gain. The assumption that the use is sure to increase </span>will be unwarranted<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> if some </span>factor<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> leads to stagnation or decrease of the use of the riverside recreational facilities.
Thereby, if any one of the implicit assumptions </span>is shown<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> </span>to be<span style="font-size: 19.36px;"> unwarranted then the complete argument would crumble.</span><br>
| 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 |
- All results of publicly funded scientific studies should be made available to the general public free of charge. Scientific journals that charge a subscription or newsstand price are profiting unfairly. 50
- It is more important to understand concepts and ideas than to learn facts. 76
- In any enterprise the process of making or doing something is ultimately more important than the final product Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above Support your point of view with reasons and or examples from 30
- Invest in unmanned space exploration. 69
- technology is deteriorating humans ability to think 75
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 576 350
No. of Characters: 2915 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.899 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.061 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.775 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 129 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 97 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 38.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.694 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.555 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.665 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.272 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1389, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'residents'' or 'resident's'?
Suggestion: residents'; resident's
...ugh it might be very beneficial for the residents health. The argument mentions that...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 113, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t in riverside recreational facilities. The underlying assumption is that there is ...
^^^
Line 9, column 647, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... facilities might go even further down. Thus the assumption that increase in budget ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, however, if, so, then, thus, for instance, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3421.0 2260.96107784 151% => OK
No of words: 483.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 7.08281573499 5.12650576532 138% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 5.28199997791 2.78398813304 190% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430641821946 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 945.0 705.55239521 134% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59920159681 125% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 112.317062145 57.8364921388 194% => OK
Chars per sentence: 244.357142857 119.503703932 204% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 34.5 23.324526521 148% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.92857142857 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.071846886562 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0558475557142 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535972881792 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0592147415748 0.128457276422 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396452648942 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 29.2 14.3799401198 203% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: 3.13 48.3550499002 6% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 14.6 7.1628742515 204% => Smog_index is high.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 21.3 12.197005988 175% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 24.38 12.5979740519 194% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 16.0 12.3882235529 129% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => 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.