The test essays that follow were written in reaction 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) among all of their favorite recreational use. The Mason River moving through the town is hardly ever utilized for these activities, nonetheless, in addition to town park division devotes little of its spending plan to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For decades there were complaints from residents concerning 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 season’s budget to riverside recreational facilities.
Write a response by which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions for the argument. Make sure to explain the way the argument is based on the presumptions and exactly exactly what the implications are in the event that presumptions prove unwarranted.
Essay Reaction — Score 6
This author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use while it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities. You can easily understand just why town residents would wish a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and therefore, maybe maybe not strong sufficient to lead to funding that is increased.
Citing studies of town residents, the writer states town resident’s passion for water-based activities. It’s not clear, nevertheless, the validity and scope of this study. As an example, the study may have expected residents if they choose with the river for water activities or wish to notice a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river activities. The test may n’t have been representative of city residents, asking just those residents whom reside upon the river. The study may have already been 10 pages 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 perhaps maybe perhaps not effectively be used to back mcdougal’s argument.
Also, the writer suggests 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 activities, a tangible connection involving the resident’s shortage of river use as well as the river’s present state just isn’t effortlessly made. Though there has been complaints, we have no idea if there were many complaints from a range that is wide of, or maybe from 1 or two people who made many complaints. To bolster his/her argument, the writer would reap the benefits of applying a normed study asking many residents why they cannot presently make use of the river.
Building upon the implication that residents don’t use the river as a result of the quality associated with river’s water as well as the scent, the author 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 that can be washed, this can 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 the water or surrounding stone, this isn’t always real. You can find figures of water which emit a smell that is strong of as a result of the geography associated with the area. It is not one thing apt to be afffected by a clean-up. Consequently, a river tidy up could have no effect upon river use. No matter whether the river’s quality has the capacity to https://eliteessaywriters.com/blog/proposal-essay-topics be enhanced or perhaps not, the writer will not effortlessly show a link between water quality and river use.
On a clean, gorgeous, safe river frequently contributes to a town’s home values, results in increased tourism and income from people who started to make use of the river, and a significantly better general total well being for residents. Of these reasons, town federal federal government might wish to purchase enhancing riverside facilities that are recreational. Nevertheless, this writer’s argument is certainly not most most likely notably persuade the city goverment to allocate increased money.
Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful reaction identifies essential presumptions and completely examines their implications. The essay indicates that the proposition to pay more about riverside facilities that are recreational on three debateable presumptions, specifically:
- that the study provides a dependable foundation for budget preparation
- that the river’s air air pollution and smell would be the only cause of its restricted leisure usage
- that efforts to wash the water and eliminate the smell will become successful
By showing that each and every assumption is very suspect, this essay shows the weakness for the whole argument. 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 included not many concerns on water-based activities.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and restricted utilization of the river for fun. Complaints about water quality and smell might be originating from just a few individuals and|people that are few, even when such complaints are wide ranging, other different factors might 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 helps to ensure that each new point develops upon the prior people. For instance, note the clear transitions at the start of paragraphs 3 and 4, along with the rational series of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Even though this essay does include errors that are minor it nevertheless conveys tips fluently. Note the word that is effective (age.g., “rife with . . . presumptions” and “may have actually swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are diverse; additionally they show skillful embedding of subordinate elements.
Because this reaction provides examination that is cogent of argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a score of 6.
Essay Reaction — Score 5
The writer of the proposition to boost the cover Mason City riverside leisure facilities provides an argument that is interesting to go ahead from the proposal would certainly require more details and thought. Whilst the correlations stated are rational and likely, concealed facets that avoid the populous City from diverting resources for this project.
for instance, look at the survey positions among Mason City residents. The idea such high respect for water-based activities will lead to use. But, study responses can scarcely be properly used as indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies conducted after winter months vacations expose individuals who list workout and fat reduction as being a priority. Yet every occupation will not equal a gym membership that is new. Perhaps the wording associated with survey results 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 regarding the public. Do they prefer these water recreations above a softball industry or soccer field? Will they be ready to sacrifice the municipal greens for better riverside facilities? Certainly the study scarcely provides information that is enough discern future usage of improved facilities.
Closely for this surveys could be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. While its maybe not illogical you might anticipate some enhance, at exactly what level will individuals start to make use of the river? The solution to this concern calls for to get out of the reasons our residents utilize or do not use the river. Is river water quality the primary restricting factor to use or perhaps the not enough docks and piers? Are individuals thinking about water recreations compared to outdoor recreation that these are typically currently involved with? These concerns can help federal government forecast how much river usage will increase also to designate a proportional enhance into the spending plan.
Likewise, the writer is positive regarding the state vow the river. notice of this sounds and start thinking about any motives that are ulterior. Is this a campaign 12 months while the plans a campaign vow through the state agent? what’s the schedule when it comes to clean-up work? Will the continuing state fully fund this project? imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities simply to view the buildings that are new into dilapidation whilst the state drags the river clean-up.
Final, will not start thinking about where these funds that are additional be redirected from. The budget that is current should be examined to find out if this increase could be afforded. In this way, the town may possibly not be ready to draw money far from other key jobs from road improvements to schools and training. naively assumes that the income can just appear without forethought on where it will probably come from.
Examining all of the different perspectives and facets involved in increasing riverside leisure facilities, the argument will not justify enhancing the budget. Although the proposal does highlight a chance, more info is needed to warrant any action.