The test essays that follow were written as a result to the prompt that appears below. The rater commentary that follows each essay that is sample the way the reaction satisfies the requirements for that rating. An Argument” Scoring Guide for a more complete understanding of the criteria for each score point, see the ” Analyze.
In studies Mason City residents rank water recreations (swimming, sailing and fishing) amongst their favorite recreational use. The Mason River moving through the town is seldom utilized for these activities, nonetheless, therefore the town park division devotes little of its spending plan to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For a long time there have been complaints from residents concerning the quality for the river’s water and also the river’s scent. In reaction, the state has announced intends to tidy up Mason River. Utilization of the river for water-based activities is consequently sure to increase. The town federal federal federal government need for that reason devote more cash in this present year’s budget to riverside facilities that are recreational.
Write a response where you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions associated with the argument. Make sure to explain the way the argument is based on the assumptions and exactly exactly what the implications are in the event that presumptions prove unwarranted.
Essay Reaction — Score 6
Whilst it could be real that the Mason City government need to devote additional money to riverside leisure facilities, this writer’s argument will not make a cogent instance for increased resources centered on river usage. It is possible to realize why town residents would wish a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and therefore, perhaps perhaps maybe not strong adequate to lead to increased financing.
Citing studies of town residents, the writer reports town resident’s love of water-based activities. It’s not clear, nonetheless, the scope and credibility of this study. For instance, the study might have expected residents when they choose utilising the river for water-based activities or want to experience a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river activities. The test may n’t have been representative of town residents, asking just those residents who reside upon the river. The study might were 10 pages very long, with 2 concerns focused on river activities. We simply have no idea. Unless the study is fully representative, legitimate, and dependable, it could perhaps perhaps not effectively be used to back mcdougal’s argument.
Furthermore, the writer signifies that residents don’t use the river for swimming, sailing, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would probably lessen river recreations, a tangible connection amongst the resident’s shortage of river usage while the river’s present state just isn’t effortlessly made. Though there has been complaints, we have no idea if there has been many complaints from the range that is wide of, or simply in one or two people who made many complaints. To bolster his/her argument, the writer would reap the benefits of applying a normed study asking an array of residents why they cannot presently make use of the river.
Building upon the implication that residents don’t use the river because of the quality for the river’s water therefore the scent, the writer implies that a river tidy up can lead to increased river use. In the event that river’s water quality and smell result from issues that can be washed, this might be real. This conceivably could be remedied for example, if the decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river. If the quality and aroma outcomes through the mineral that is natural in water or surrounding rock, this isn’t always real. There are numerous systems of water which emit a good odor of sulphur as a result of the geography of this area. This is simply not one thing probably be afffected with a clean-up. Consequently, a river tidy up might have no effect upon river use. Whether or not the river’s quality has the capacity to be improved or otherwise not, the writer will not effortlessly show a link between water quality and river use.
On a clean, stunning, safe river frequently increases a town’s home values, results in increased tourism and income from people who started to make use of the river, and an improved general total well being for residents. For those reasons, town federal government might wish to spend money on enhancing riverside leisure facilities. But, this writer’s argument is certainly not most most most likely notably persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased financing.
Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful reaction identifies crucial presumptions and completely examines their implications. The essay demonstrates the proposition to invest more on riverside facilities that are recreational on three dubious presumptions, particularly:
- that the survey offers a dependable foundation for budget preparation
- that the river’s air pollution and smell would be the only cause of its restricted leisure usage
- that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor shall achieve success
By showing that every presumption is very suspect, this essay shows the weakness associated with whole argument. As an example, paragraph 2 highlights that the study may possibly not have utilized a representative test, could have provided restricted alternatives, and may have included hardly any concerns on water-based activities.
Paragraph 3 examines the connection that is tenuous complaints and limited utilization of the river for entertainment. Complaints about water quality and odor can be originating from just a few individuals and|people that are few, just because such complaints , other very different facets can be a great deal more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 explains geologic features may avoid effective river clean-up. Details such as these give compelling help.
In addition, careful company helps to ensure that each and every brand new point develops upon the last people. for instance, note the clear transitions paragraphs 3 and 4, along with the rational series of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Even though this essay does include small errors, it nevertheless conveys tips fluently. Note the word that is effective (age.g., “rife with . . . assumptions” and “may have actually swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are not simply diverse; in addition they show skillful embedding of subordinate elements.
because this reaction provides cogent study of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a rating of 6.
Essay Reaction — Score 5
The writer of the proposition the plan for Mason City riverside leisure facilities provides an interesting argument but to maneuver ahead from the proposition require more details and thought. Although the correlations stated are rational and likely, concealed factors that avoid the City from diverting resources to the task.
For instance, look at the survey ratings among Mason City residents. The idea such regard that is high water-based www.essaypro.com activities will lead to use. But, study responses can be used as hardly indicators of real behavior. Many studies carried out after the wintertime vacations reveal individuals who list workout and slimming down being a priority that is top. Yet every occupation will not equal a gym membership that is new. perhaps the wording associated with study outcomes stay vague and ambiguous. This allows for many other favorites while water sports may be among the residents’ favorite activities. What stays unknown may be the priorities associated with average man or woman. Do they prefer these water-based activities above a softball industry or soccer field? Will they be prepared to sacrifice the golf that is municipal for better riverside facilities? Certainly the study scarcely provides enough information to discern future usage of improved facilities.
Closely from the studies may be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Even though it is maybe not illogical you may anticipate some increase, at just what level shall people start to utilize the river? this concern calls for a study to get the reasons out our residents utilize or do not use the river. Is river water quality the limiting that is primary to use or perhaps the not enough docks and piers? Are people interested in water activities compared to recreational use that they have been currently involved with? These concerns can help government forecast just how much river usage will increase and also to designate a proportional enhance into the spending plan.
Likewise, the writer is positive about the continuing state vow to wash the river. We have to notice associated with sounds and think about any motives that are ulterior. Is it a campaign 12 months while the plans a campaign promise through the state agent? what’s the schedule when it comes to clean-up work? Will the continuing state fully fund this task? We could imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities simply to watch the brand new structures fall into dilapidation although the state drags the river clean-up.
Final, the writer will not start thinking about where these extra funds will be redirected from. The present spending plan situation must certanly be examined if this enhance may be afforded. In this way, the town might not be happy to draw cash far from other key tasks from road improvements to schools and education. naively assumes that can appear without forethought simply on where it will probably come from.
Examining all of the angles that are various facets associated with enhancing riverside leisure facilities, the argument will not justify increasing the spending plan. Whilst the proposal does highlight , extra information justify any action.