In surveys Mason city residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, fising) among their favorite recreational activities. The mason river flowing through this city is rarely used for these pursuits, however and the city devotes less of its budget to maintaining the recreational facilities
For years there have been complaints from residence 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.
This argument posits that if more money is allocated to riverside recreational facilities, then more people will participate in water sports on the Mason River. It is possible that people may use the river for water sports, however this argument does not prove it without a doubt. There are a number of questions that need to be answered in order for this assumption to be accepted.
The first question is why people aren’t using the river for water sports. This argument assumes that it is because of the derelict recreational facilities and the dirty river. However, there are a number of other possibilities. Perhaps the current is too swift, making it a danger for swimming and a poor spot for fishing. It’s possible that there are other nearby lakes or rivers that are safer, cleaner, bigger, more well-stocked with fish, or in another way superior. Is this particular river spring-fed, making it frigid even in summer? If any of those are the case, then any improvement in facilities will probably not merit an great increase in swimming, fishing, or boating.
The second assumption with faults is the idea that the smelly river is the main problem and that it can be cleaned. There is no mention of how many complaints are received about this specific topic. Could it be the same four people complaining every year? Also, to say the river “smells” is a strange complaint. It’s possible that the river contains sulfer or other mineral deposits meaning that the smell is permanent and it would be unwise to try to change the natural chemical makeup of the water. It’s possible that the smell is permanent. It’s also possible that even if pollution is causing the smell and the smell can be removed that there will be no change in usage.
The final point is that it’s possible that an increase in budget will not affect the river usage at all. Even simple repairs to a small parking lot and restroom facility can be incredibly expensive. Exactly how much money is needed and what it will be used for is necessary. Then the question is, “will this budget increase need to be a yearly thing?” Or is it a one-time charge?
All of these questions need to be answered in other for the assumption that people will use the Mason River for water sports to be accepted.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-20 | gaurang.rane | 41 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter collegeWrite a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you ta 66
- In surveys Mason city residents rank water sports (swimming, boating, fising) among their favorite recreational activities. The mason river flowing through this city is rarely used for these pursuits, however and the city devotes less of its budget to mai 83
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 398 350
No. of Characters: 1822 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.467 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.578 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.397 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.304 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.906 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.391 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.277 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.471 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...r for this assumption to be accepted. The first question is why people aren&ap...
^^^^
Line 3, column 645, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...t in facilities will probably not merit an great increase in swimming, fishing, or...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...se in swimming, fishing, or boating. The second assumption with faults is the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 570, 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.
...s possible that the smell is permanent. It's also possible that even if pollution ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...at there will be no change in usage. The final point is that it's possib...
^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g?' Or is it a one-time charge? All of these questions need to be answer...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1926.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 397.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85138539043 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46372701284 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66722918096 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.463476070529 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.3758274736 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.5454545455 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0454545455 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.40909090909 5.70786347227 42% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151933104746 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0505815253379 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0495668103628 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114191554564 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0599565917508 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.55 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
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.