The test essays that follow were written as a result in to the prompt that seems below. The rater commentary that follows each sample essay explains the way the reaction satisfies the requirements for the score. For a far more complete comprehension of the requirements for every rating point, begin to see the “Analyze an Argument” Scoring Guide.
In studies Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, sailing and fishing) among all of their favorite activities that are recreational. The Mason River moving through the town is rarely useful for these pursuits, nevertheless, plus the town park division devotes little of the budget to riverside that is maintaining facilities. For a long time there has been complaints from residents in regards to the quality for the river’s water plus the river’s scent. In reaction, the state has established intends to tidy up Mason River. Utilization of the river for water-based activities is consequently certain to increase. The town federal government need for this reason devote more cash in this present year’s budget to riverside facilities that are recreational.
Write a response by which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions associated with argument. Make sure to explain the way the argument varies according to the presumptions and just exactly what the implications are in the event that presumptions prove unwarranted.
Essay Reaction — Score 6
Although it can be real that the Mason City federal 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. You can easily understand just why town residents would desire a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and so, maybe not strong adequate to lead to increased money.
Citing surveys of town residents, the writer states town resident’s passion for water-based activities. It isn’t clear, nevertheless, the validity and scope of this survey. As an example, the study may have expected residents when they choose utilising the river for water activities or want to notice a dam that is hydroelectric, which may have swayed residents toward river activities. The test might not need been representative of town residents, asking just those residents who reside upon the river. The study may have already been 10 pages very very very long, with 2 concerns focused on river activities. We simply have no idea. Unless the study is completely representative, legitimate, and dependable, it may maybe perhaps not effectively be used to back the writer’s argument.
Furthermore, the writer shows that residents don’t use the river for swimming, sailing, and fishing, despite their interest that is professed water is polluted and smelly. A concrete connection between the resident’s lack of river use and the river’s current state is not effectively made while a polluted, smelly river would likely cut down on river sports. Though there were complaints, we don’t know if there were many complaints from a wide variety of individuals, or simply from 1 or two people who made many complaints. The author would benefit from implementing a normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river to strengthen his/her argument.
Building upon the implication that residents don’t use the river as a result of quality associated with river’s water as well as 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 dilemmas and this can be washed, this might be real. For instance, if the decreased water quality and aroma is brought on by air pollution by factories over the river, this conceivably might be remedied. If the quality and aroma outcomes through the mineral that is natural in water or surrounding stone, this isn’t always real. There are a few systems of water which emit a good odor of sulphur because of the geography for the area. This isn’t one thing probably be afffected by way of a clean-up. Consequently, a river tidy up could have no effect upon river use. Whether or not the river’s quality has the capacity to be enhanced or otherwise not, the writer doesn’t effectively show a link between water quality and river use.
On a clean, breathtaking, safe river frequently adds to a town’s home values, results in increased tourism and income from those that visited use the river, and a much better general standard of living for residents. Of these reasons, town federal government might wish to spend money on increasing riverside leisure facilities. But, this author’s argument just isn’t likely somewhat persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased financing.
Rater https://eliteessaywriters.com/blog/research-paper-topics Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This response that is insightful essential presumptions and completely examines their implications. The essay implies that the proposition to pay more about riverside facilities that are recreational on three dubious presumptions, particularly:
- that the survey provides a basis that is reliable budget planning
- that the river’s air pollution and smell would be the only reasons behind its restricted use that is recreational
- that efforts to clean the water and remove the odor shall achieve success
By showing that each and every presumption is very suspect, this essay shows the weakness of this argument that is entire. For instance, paragraph 2 points out that the study might possibly not have utilized a representative test, may have provided restricted alternatives, and could have contained not many concerns on water recreations.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and restricted utilization of the river for activity. Complaints about water quality and smell might be originating from only a few individuals and|people that are few, regardless if such complaints are wide ranging, other very different factors could be a whole lot more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 describes geologic features may avoid river clean-up that is effective. Details such as these give compelling assistance.
In addition, careful company means that each and every brand new point builds upon the last people. As an example, note the clear transitions at the start of paragraphs 3 and 4, also the sequence that is logical of within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Although this essay does include small mistakes, it nevertheless conveys some ideas fluently. Note the effective term alternatives (age.g., “rife with . . . assumptions” and “may have actually swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are diverse; they also show skillful embedding of subordinate elements.
because this reaction provides examination that is cogent of argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a rating of 6.
Essay Reaction — Score 5
Mcdougal with this proposition to boost the plan for Mason City riverside leisure facilities has an argument that is interesting to go ahead regarding the proposition need extra information and thought. Whilst the correlations stated are rational and likely, concealed facets that avoid the populous City from diverting resources to the task.
As an example, think about the survey positions among Mason City residents. such high respect for water activities will result in use. But, study responses can be used as hardly indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies conducted after winter time holiday breaks expose individuals who list workout and slimming down as being a principal interest. Yet every profession doesn’t equal a gym membership that is new. Perhaps the wording associated with study outcomes stay ambiguous and obscure. 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 the public. Do they prefer these water activities above a softball soccer or field field? Will they be prepared to sacrifice the municipal program for better riverside facilities? Certainly the study barely provides sufficient information to discern future usage of improved facilities.
Closely from the studies could be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Whilst it’s perhaps not illogical you may anticipate some enhance, at just what level will individuals start to utilize the river? The solution to this concern calls for a study the reasons out our residents utilize or do not use the river. Is river water quality the limiting that is primary to use or the not enough docks and piers? Are individuals thinking about water recreations compared to the outdoor recreation that they have been currently involved with? These concerns may help the town federal government forecast exactly exactly how much river use will increase also to designate a proportional enhance into the spending plan.
Likewise, is positive concerning the state vow the river. We have to hear regarding the sounds and think about any motives that are ulterior. Is it a campaign 12 months in addition to plans a campaign vow through the state agent? what’s the schedule for the clean-up work? Will the continuing state fully fund this task? We are able to imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities simply to view the buildings that are new into dilapidation even though the state drags the river clean-up.
Final, the writer will not think about where these extra funds will be redirected from. The present spending plan situation needs to be examined if this enhance is afforded. The City may not be willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education in a sense. naively assumes that the cash can appear without forethought simply on where it’ll result from.
Examining all of the different angles and facets associated with enhancing riverside leisure facilities, the argument will not justify enhancing the budget. Even though the proposal does highlight , extra information is needed to justify any action.