In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favourite 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.
Water sports like swimming, boating, fishing are popular sports. First, the argument readily assumes that, due to increase in water sports the quality of the river water is degrading. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, the quality of water might also degrade because people living nearby may not be keeping the surrounding clean. If strict rules are made by government then there will be a better surrounding maintained. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that before looking after the river, first some action should be taken on water sports.
The argument readily claims that the author also points out that if the state has announced to clean up the river water and hence the use of the river for water sports is therefore sure to increase.
This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation. To illustrate further if they clean the river, then more and more people will be attracted towards its beauty and there be more crowd which will again lead to the degradation of river water and even the surrounding near it. If the argument had provided evidence that despite strict rules and regulations by state, the water quality is degraded because of the people coming for water sports then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author notes that the city government should devote more money in this year's budget to riverside recreational facilities. However, scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical respects and raises several skeptical questions. For example, can government maintain river water quality by devoting more money? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide better concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-10 | snowsss | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-08 | ruchavarade | 55 | view |
| 2019-08-04 | Asmita Pathak | 82 | view |
| 2019-06-10 | pallavipolas | 29 | view |
| 2018-09-12 | Aarohi Agarwal | 49 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 75
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 58
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 50
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 58
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 66
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: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1909 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.077 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.546 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.118 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.134 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 3 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 370, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...y not be keeping the surrounding clean. If strict rules are made by government the...
^^
Line 1, column 461, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ill be a better surrounding maintained. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 80, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... government should devote more money in this years budget to riverside recreational ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, look, may, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1966.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22872340426 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68774443023 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51329787234 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 705.55239521 87% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.0340152254 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.647058824 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1176470588 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88235294118 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.141984019827 0.218282227539 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0497633727527 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481566386485 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0845188537436 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0431537583765 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.