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.
Surely the Mason City government is to devote money for the riverside recreational activities for the people of the city. Although, the author doesn’t not give proper justification for this step to be taken. There is no evidence or an example in the article that makes a strong point for the Mason city government to take such measures.
As per article, the survey, mentioned, does not justify the number of people it was taken from. It can be entire city or just couple of people from a particular area. The author also does not mention the age group of the people involved in taking this survey. There must have been another questions on cleanliness of the river. There may have been another idea apart from creating recreational facilities, like, making a dam, using water to generate electricity or diverting the water of the river through a canal to some other part outside the city. One also does not know if the survey was 10 pages long or 2 pages long and the number of questions on water sports.
According to the author, the residents were bothered by pollution of the river and its smell. Although, author fails to mention were these all the residents throughout the city, possibly who also stay pretty away from the river or the ones staying on banks of the river. The author also mentioned that the river was smelly and polluted but fails to mention the exact cause of the river to be polluted or smelly. Was the river polluted due to sewage of the city or there have been natural effects of the river to be polluted. Traces of sulphur due to pollution and smell can be caused by geographical factors also.
The author does not mention monetary scenario after the river is being cleaned. If Mason City government puts most of the finance coming in the form of taxed from the residents on the cleaning of the river and if the paid recreational activities do not work and the river is polluted again due to natural causes, then it will be a waste of money and resources. Also, author did not mention the amount of revenue that will be generated by the recreational activities.
Although, a clean river and well developed riverside will surely give a happy environment for every age group of people of Mason City, the author fails to mention proper evidences fr the government to invest in the cleaning of river and development of the riverside.
| 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 |
- 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 63
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 58
- Mena nd women are physically different 50
- Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledg 89
- Some people think that human needs for farmland, housing, and industry are more important than saving land for endangered animals. Do you agree or disagree with this point of view? Why or why not? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 60
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 417 350
No. of Characters: 1903 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.519 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.564 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.439 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.241 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 609, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...l can be caused by geographical factors also. The author does not mention monetary...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, then, well, apart from
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1949.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.68509615385 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5241884113 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.447115384615 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 626.4 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.5863600886 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.277777778 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1111111111 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.55555555556 5.70786347227 45% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208736296443 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0730664318104 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0597317641355 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128093976398 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0492372588133 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.22 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.