The test essays that follow were written as a result to the prompt that seems below. The rater commentary that follows each essay that is sample how a 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 sports (swimming, sailing and fishing) amongst their favorite activities that are recreational. The Mason River moving through the town is seldom useful for these pursuits, nonetheless, as well as the city park division devotes little of their spending plan to riverside that is maintaining facilities. For decades there has been complaints from residents in regards to the quality regarding the river’s water in addition to river’s odor. As a result, the continuing state has established intends to cleanup 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 recreational facilities.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions regarding the argument. Make sure to explain how a argument varies according to the presumptions and just 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 realize why town residents would require a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and so, maybe perhaps maybe not strong sufficient to lead to increased money.
Citing studies of town residents, the writer reports town resident’s love of water recreations. It’s not clear, but, the range and credibility of this study. As an example, the study may have expected residents when they choose utilising the river for water-based activities or wish to view a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river sports. The test may not need been representative of town residents, asking just those residents whom live upon the river. The study may have already been 10 pages long, with 2 concerns aimed at river activities. We simply have no idea. Unless the study is completely representative, legitimate, and reliable, it may perhaps perhaps perhaps not effectively be used to back the writer’s argument.
Also, the writer means 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 has been complaints, we don’t know if there has been many complaints from a wide variety of individuals, or maybe in one 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 of this river’s water while the odor, the writer implies that a river clean up can lead to increased river use. If the river’s water quality and smell result from issues which may 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 results through the mineral that is natural in water or surrounding stone, this isn’t always real. You can find figures of water which emit a powerful odor of sulphur because of the geography of this area. This is simply not one thing probably be afffected by way of a clean-up. Consequently, a river tidy up might have no effect upon river use. No matter whether the river’s quality has the capacity to be enhanced or perhaps not, the writer will not effectively show a link between water quality and river use.
A clear, gorgeous, safe river usually increases a city’s home values, contributes to increased tourism and income from people who visited make use of the river, and a significantly better general standard of living for residents. Of these reasons, city federal federal government might wish to invest in increasing riverside leisure facilities. But, this writer’s argument just isn’t most most most likely dramatically persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased money.
Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6
This insightful reaction identifies crucial presumptions and completely examines their implications. The essay reveals that the proposition to invest more on riverside leisure facilities rests on three dubious presumptions, specifically:
- that the study offers 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 interesting research paper topics efforts to clean the water and remove the odor shall become successful
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 highlights that the study might possibly not have utilized a sample that is representative may have offered restricted alternatives, and may have contained not many concerns on water-based activities.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and restricted utilization of the river for activity. Complaints about water quality and smell can be originating from just a few individuals and|people that are few, no matter if such complaints , other different facets can be a whole lot more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 describes that one geologic features may avoid effective river clean-up. Details such as these give support that is compelling.
In addition, careful company helps to ensure that each and every brand new point develops upon the last people. for example, 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 errors that are minor 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; they even 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 cover Mason City riverside leisure facilities has an interesting argument but ahead in the proposition would certainly need more details and thought. Although the correlations stated are rational and likely, there could be concealed facets that avoid the City from diverting resources to the project.
for instance, think about the survey ratings among Mason City residents. The idea is the fact that such high respect for water recreations will result in use. But, study responses can barely be utilized as indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies carried out after winter time holiday breaks expose individuals who list workout and weight reduction as being a priority that is top. Yet every occupation will not equal a gym membership that is new. Perhaps the wording of this 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 the public that is general. Do they prefer these water-based activities above a softball industry or soccer field? Will they be happy to sacrifice the golf that is municipal for better riverside facilities? Certainly the survey barely provides information that is enough discern future usage of improved facilities.
Closely for this studies may be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Even though it is perhaps not illogical you could anticipate some enhance, at just what level will individuals start to make use of the river? The solution to this concern calls for to get the reasons out our residents utilize or don’t use the river. Is river water quality the limiting that is primary to use or the not enough docks and piers? Are individuals interested in water recreations as compared to activities that are recreational these are generally currently involved with? These concerns may help the town government forecast just how much river use will increase also to designate a proportional enhance to your spending plan.
Likewise, the writer is optimistic about the state vow to completely clean the river. We have to hear associated with the sounds and give consideration to any motives that are ulterior. Is this a campaign 12 months therefore the plans a campaign promise through the state agent? What’s the schedule for the effort that is clean-up? Will the state fully fund this task? We could imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities just to view the brand new structures fall into dilapidation whilst hawaii drags the river clean-up.
Last, will not give consideration to where these funds that are additional be diverted from. The present budget situation must be examined to ascertain if this enhance could be 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 funds can appear without forethought simply on where it’ll result from.
Examining most of the angles that are various facets associated with increasing riverside leisure facilities, the argument doesn’t justify enhancing the spending plan. As the proposal does highlight a chance, additional information is needed to justify any action.