Test Essay reactions and Rater Commentary for the Argument Task

The test essays that follow were written as a result in to the prompt that seems below. The rater commentary that follows each essay that is sample the way the response satisfies 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 surveys Mason City residents rank water recreations (swimming, sailing and fishing) amongst their favorite activities that are recreational. The Mason River moving through the town is hardly ever employed for these activities, nevertheless, in addition to town park division devotes little of their spending plan to riverside that is maintaining facilities. For decades there were complaints from residents in regards to the quality for the river’s water and also the river’s odor. 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 recreational facilities.

Write a response by which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions associated with argument. Make sure to explain the way the argument relies on the presumptions and just just just what the implications are in the event that presumptions prove unwarranted.

Essay Reaction — Score 6

Whilst it could be correct that the Mason City government need to devote more income to riverside leisure facilities, this writer’s argument will not make a cogent instance for increased resources predicated on river usage. It is possible to realize why town residents would require a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and so, maybe maybe not strong sufficient to lead to increased money.

Citing studies of town residents, the writer states town resident’s love of water-based activities. It is really not clear, nonetheless, the validity and scope of this study. For instance, the study could have expected residents when they choose utilising the river for water recreations or want to visit a dam that is hydroelectric, which may have swayed residents toward river activities. The test may not have been representative of town residents, asking only those residents whom reside upon the river. The study might are 10 pages long, with 2 concerns focused on river activities. We simply have no idea. Unless the survey is completely representative, legitimate, and dependable, it could maybe maybe not effectively be used to back mcdougal’s argument.

Also, the author 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 has been numerous complaints from the range that is wide of, or maybe from a 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 because of the quality of this river’s water therefore the odor, the writer implies that a river clean up can lead to increased river use. In the event that river’s water quality and smell result from dilemmas which may be washed, this can 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 normal calcium deposits in water or surrounding stone, this isn’t always real. There are a few figures of water which emit a very good odor of sulphur as a result of geography associated with area. It is essay writer not 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 improved or otherwise not, the writer will not effortlessly show a link between water quality and river use.

A clear, gorgeous, safe river usually increases a town’s home values, contributes to increased tourism and income from those that come to use the river, and an improved general total well being for residents. Of these reasons, city government might wish to spend money on enhancing riverside leisure facilities. Nonetheless, this writer’s argument is certainly not most most likely dramatically 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 that the proposal to invest more about riverside facilities that are recreational on three dubious assumptions, particularly:

• that the study offers a basis that is reliable budget preparation
• that the river’s air air pollution and smell would be the only cause of its limited leisure usage
• that efforts to completely clean the water and take away the odor will become successful

By showing that each and every presumption is extremely suspect, this essay shows the weakness for the argument that is entire. As an example, paragraph 2 highlights that the study may possibly not have utilized a sample that is representative may have provided restricted alternatives, and may have included not many concerns on water activities.

Paragraph 3 examines the connection that is tenuous complaints and restricted use of the river for activity. Complaints about water quality and smell could be originating from just a few individuals and|people that are few, no matter if such complaints , other different facets could be a great deal more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 describes that one geologic features may avoid river clean-up that is effective. Details such since these give compelling assistance.

In addition, careful company helps to ensure that every brand new point develops upon the earlier people. for example, note the clear transitions paragraphs 3 and 4, along with 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 . . . presumptions” and “may have 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 score of 6.

Essay Reaction — Score 5

The writer with this proposition to boost the cover Mason City riverside leisure facilities has an argument that is interesting to maneuver ahead regarding the proposition require more info and thought. Whilst the correlations stated are rational and likely, concealed facets that stop the populous City from diverting resources to the task.

For instance, look at the survey ranks among Mason City residents. is the fact that such high respect for water recreations will result in use. But, study responses can be used as hardly indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies carried out after winter time vacations expose individuals who list exercise and fat reduction being a principal interest. Yet every career will not equal a brand new fitness center account. perhaps the wording for the study outcomes stay ambiguous and obscure. While water-based activities are one of the residents’ favorite tasks, this permits for most other favorites. What stays unknown may be the priorities for the average man or woman. Do they prefer these water activities above a softball industry or soccer field? Will they be ready to sacrifice the golf that is municipal for better riverside facilities? Certainly the study barely provides information that is enough discern future usage of improved facilities.

Closely from the studies could be the bold presumption that a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Even though it is perhaps not illogical to anticipate some enhance, at what level will individuals begin to utilize the river? The solution to this concern requires the reasons out our residents 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 keen on water recreations as compared to outdoor recreation that they’ve been currently involved with? These concerns may help government forecast exactly exactly how river that is much will increase and also to designate a proportional enhance to your spending plan.

Likewise, the writer is positive in connection with state vow to wash the river. notice regarding the sounds and give consideration to any motives that are ulterior. Is it a campaign 12 months as well as the plans a campaign vow from the state agent? what’s the schedule for the clean-up work? Will the state fully fund this task? We are able to imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities just to watch the buildings that are new into dilapidation whilst their state drags the river clean-up.

Final, doesn’t give consideration to where these funds that are additional be redirected from. The budget that is current should be evaluated if this increase is afforded. In a way, the town may possibly not be happy to draw cash far from other key tasks from road improvements to schools and training. naively assumes that the funds can merely appear without forethought on where it’s going to originate from.

Examining most of the angles that are various facets involved in enhancing riverside leisure facilities, the argument doesn’t justify enhancing the spending plan. Whilst the proposal does highlight , more info justify any action.