Essay Response * – Score 6
While it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational
facilities, this author's argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use. It
is easy to understand why city residents would want a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and
assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to increased funding.
Citing surveys of city residents, the author reports city resident's love of water sports. It is not clear,
however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the survey could have asked residents if they
prefer using the river for water sports or would like to see a hydroelectric dam built, which may have
swayed residents toward river sports. The sample may not have been representative of city residents,
asking only those residents who live upon the river. The survey may have been 10 pages long, with 2
questions dedicated to river sports. We just do not know. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid,
and reliable, it can not be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Additionally, the author implies that residents do not use the river for swimming, boating, and fishing,
despite their professed interest, because the water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river
would likely cut down on river sports, a concrete connection between the resident's lack of river use and the
river's current state is not effectively made. Though there have been complaints, we do not know if there
have been numerous complaints from a wide range of people, or perhaps from one or two individuals who
made numerous complaints. To strengthen his/her argument, the author would benefit from implementing a
normed survey asking a wide range of residents why they do not currently use the river.
Building upon the implication that residents do not use the river due to the quality of the river's water and
the smell, the author suggests that a river clean up will result in increased river usage. If the river's water
quality and smell result from problems which can be cleaned, this may be true. For example, if the
decreased water quality and aroma is caused by pollution by factories along the river, this conceivably
could be remedied. But if the quality and aroma results from the natural mineral deposits in the water or
surrounding rock, this may not be true. There are some bodies of water which emit a strong smell of
sulphur due to the geography of the area. This is not something likely to be afffected by a clean-up.
Consequently, a river clean up may have no impact upon river usage. Regardless of whether the river's
quality is able to be improved or not, the author does not effectively show a connection between water
quality and river usage.
A clean, beautiful, safe river often adds to a city's property values, leads to increased tourism and revenue
from those who come to take advantage of the river, and a better overall quality of life for residents. For
these reasons, city government may decide to invest in improving riverside recreational facilities.
However, this author's argument is not likely significantly persuade the city goverment to allocate increased
funding.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 6
This insightful response identifies important assumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The
proposal to spend more on riverside recreational facilities rests on three questionable assumptions, namely
that:
The survey provides a reliable basis for budget planning;
The river’s pollution and odor are the only reasons for its limited recreational use;
Efforts to clean the water and remove the odor will be successful.
* All responses in this publication are reproduced exactly as written, including errors, misspellings, etc., if
any.
By showing that each assumption is highly suspect, this essay demonstrates the weakness of the entire
argument. For example, paragraph 2 points out that the survey might not have used a representative
sample, might have offered limited choices, and might have contained very few questions on water sports.
Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and limited use of the river for
recreation. Complaints about water quality and odor may be coming from only a few people, and even if
such complaints are numerous, other completely different factors may be much more significant in
reducing river usage. Finally, paragraph 4 explains that certain geologic features may prevent effective
river clean up. Details such as these provide compelling support.
In addition, careful organization insures that each new point builds upon the previous ones. Note, for
example, the clear transitions at the beginning of paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the logical sequence of
sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).
Although this essay does contain minor errors, it still conveys ideas fluently. Note the effective word
choices (e.g., “rife with . . . assumptions” and “may have swayed residents”). In addition, sentences are not
merely varied; they also display skillful embedding of subordinate elements. Note, for example, the
sustained parallelism in the first sentence of the concluding paragraph.
Since this response offers cogent examination of the argument and also conveys meaning skillfully, it earns
a score of 6.
Essay Response – Score 5
The author of this proposal to increase the budget for Mason City riverside recreational facilities offers an
interesting argument but to move forward on the proposal would definitely require more information and
thought. While the correlations stated are logical and probable, there may be hidden factors that prevent
the City from diverting resources to this project.
For example, consider the survey rankings among Mason City residents. The thought is that such high
regard for water sports will translate into usage. But, survey responses can hardly be used as indicators of
actual behavior. Many surveys conducted after the winter holidays reveal people who list exercise and
weight loss as a top priority. Yet every profession does not equal a new gym membership. Even the
wording of the survey results remain ambiguous and vague. While water sports may be among the
residents' favorite activities, this allows for many other favorites. What remains unknown is the priorities
of the general public. Do they favor these water sports above a softball field or soccer field? Are they
willing to sacrifice the municipal golf course for better riverside facilities? Indeed the survey hardly
provides enough information to discern future use of improved facilities.
Closely linked to the surveys is the bold assumption that a cleaner river will result in increased usage.
While it is not illogical to expect some increase, at what level will people begin to use the river? The
answer to this question requires a survey to find out the reasons our residents use or do not use the river. Is
river water quality the primary limiting factor to usage or the lack of docks and piers? Are people more
interested in water sports than the recreational activities that they are already engaged in? These questions
will help the city government forecast how much river usage will increase and to assign a proportional
increase to the budget.
Likewise, the author is optimistic regarding the state promise to clean the river. We need to hear the source
of the voices and consider any ulterior motives. Is this a campaign year and the plans a campaign promise
from the state representative? What is the timeline for the clean-up effort? Will the state fully fund this
project? We can imagine the misuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities only to watch the new
buildings fall into dilapidation while the state drags the river clean-up.
Last, the author does not consider where these additional funds will be diverted from. The current budget
situation must be assessed to determine if this increase can be afforded. In a sense, the City may not be
willing to draw money away from other key projects from road improvements to schools and education.
The author naively assumes that the money can simply appear without forethought on where it will come
from.
Examining all the various angles and factors involved with improving riverside recreational facilities, the
argument does not justify increasing the budget. While the proposal does highlight a possibility, more
information is required to warrant any action.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 5
Each paragraph in the body of this perceptive essay identifies and examines an unstated assumption that is
crucial to the argument. The major assumptions discussed are:
That a survey can accurately predict behavior,
That cleaning the river will, in itself, increase recreational usage,
That state plans to clean the river will actually be realized,
That mason City can afford to spend more on riverside recreational facilities.
Support within each paragraph is both thoughtful and thorough. Paragraph 2, for example, points out
vagueness in the wording of the survey: Even if water sports rank among the favorite recreational activities
of Mason City residents, other sports may still be much more popular. Thus, if the first assumption proves
unwarranted, the argument to fund riverside facilities – rather than soccer fields or golf courses – becomes
much weaker. Paragraph 4 considers several reasons why river clean up plans may not be successful (the
plans may be nothing more than campaign promises or funding may not be adequate). Thus, the weakness
of the third assumption undermines the argument that river recreation will increase and riverside
improvements will be needed at all.
Instead of dismissing each assumption in isolation, this response places them in a logical order and
considers their connections. Note the appropriate transitions between and within paragraphs, clarifying the
links among the assumptions (e.g., “Closely linked to the surveys…” or “The answer to this question
requires…”).
Along with strong development, this response also displays facility with language. Minor errors in
punctuation are present, but word choices are apt and sentences suitably varied in pattern and length. The
response uses a number of rhetorical questions, but the implied answers are always clear enough to support
the points being made.
Thus, the response satisfies all requirements for a score of 5, but its development is not thorough or
compelling enough for a 6.
Essay Response – Score 4
The problem with the arguement is the assumption that if the Mason River were cleaned up, that people
would use it for water sports and recreation. This is not necessarily true, as people may rank water sports
among their favorite recreational activities, but that does not mean that those same people have the
financial ability, time or equipment to pursue those interests.
However, even if the writer of the argument is correct in assuming that the Mason River will be used
more by the city's residents, the argument does not say why the recreational facilities need more money. If
recreational facilities already exist along the Mason River, why should the city allot more money to fund
them? If the recreational facilities already in existence will be used more in the coming years, then they will
be making more money for themselves, eliminating the need for the city government to devote more money
to them.
According to the argument, the reason people are not using the Mason River for water sports is because
of the smell and the quality of water, not because the recreational facilities are unacceptable.
If the city government allotted more money to the recreational facilities, then the budget is being cut from
some other important city project. Also, if the assumptions proved unwarranted, and more people did not
use the river for recreation, then much money has been wasted, not only the money for the recreational
facilities, but also the money that was used to clean up the river to attract more people in the first place.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 4
This competent response identifies two unstated assumptions:
That cleaning up the Mason River will lead to increased recreational use,
That existing facilities along the river need more funding.
Paragraph 1 offers reasons why the first assumption is questionable (e.g. residents may not have the
necessary time or money for water sports). Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 explain that riverside recreational
facilities may already be adequate and may, in fact, produce additional income if usage increases. Thus,
the response is adequately developed and satisfactorily organized to show how the argument depends on
questionable assumptions.
This essay does not, however, rise to a score of 5 because it fails to consider several other unstated
assumptions (e.g. that the survey is reliable or that the efforts to clean the river will be successful).
Furthermore, the final paragraph makes some extraneous, unsupported assertions of its own. Mason City
may actually have a budget surplus so that cuts to other projects will not be necessary, and cleaning the
river may provide other real benefits even if it is not used more for water sports.
This response is generally free of errors in grammar and usage and displays sufficient control of language
to support a score of 4.
Essay Response – Score 3
Surveys are created to speak for the people; however, surveys do not always speak for the whole
community. A survey completed by Mason City residents concluded that the residents enjoy water sports as
a form of recreation. If that is so evident, why has the river not been used? The blame can not be soley be
placed on the city park department. The city park department can only do as much as they observe. The real
issue is not the residents use of the river, but their desire for a more pleasant smell and a more pleasant
sight. If the city government cleans the river, it might take years for the smell to go away. If the budget is
changed to accomodate the clean up of the Mason River, other problems will arise. The residents will then
begin to complain about other issues in their city that will be ignored because of the great emphasis being
placed on Mason River. If more money is taken out of the budget to clean the river an assumption can be
made. This assumption is that the budget for another part of city maintenance or building will be tapped
into to. In addition, to the budget being used to clean up Mason River, it will also be allocated in increasing
riverside recreational facilites. The government is trying to appease its residents, and one can warrant that
the role of the government is to please the people. There are many assumptions being made; however, the
government can not make the assumption that people want the river to be cleaned so that they can use it for
recreational water activities. The government has to realize the long term effects that their decision will
have on the monetary value of their budget.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 3
Even though much of this essay is tangential, it offers some relevant examination of the argument’s
assumptions. The early sentences mention a questionable assumption (that the survey results are reliable)
but do not explain how the survey might have been flawed. Then the response drifts to irrelevant matters –
a defense of the city park department, a prediction of budget problems, and the problem of pleasing city
residents. Some statements even introduce unwarranted assumptions that are not part of the original
argument (e.g., “The residents will then begin to complain about other issues,” and “This assumption is that
the budget for another part of city maintenance or building will be tapped into.”). Near the end, the
response does correctly note that city government should not assume that residents want to use the river for
recreation. Hence, the proposal to increase funding for riverside recreational facilities may not be justified.
In summary, the language in this response is reasonably clear, but its examination of unstated assumptions
remains limited and therefore earns a score of 3.
Essay Response – Score 2
This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in it which is not logical.
First, this statement mentions raking water sports as their favorite recreational activities at the first
sentence. However, it seems to have a ralation between the first sentence and the setence which mentions
that increase the quality of the river's water and the river's smell. This is a wrong cause and result to solve
the problem.
Second, as a reponse to the complaints from residents, the state plan to clean up the river. As a result, the
state expects that water sports will increase. When you look at two sentences, the result is not appropriate
for the cause.
Third, the last statement is the conclusion. However, even though residents rank water sports, the city
government might devote the budget to another issue. This statement is also a wrong cause and result.
In summary, the statement is not logical because there are some errors in it. The supporting setences are
not strong enough to support this issue.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 2
Although this essay appears to be carefully organized, it does not follow the directions for the assigned
task. In his/her vague references to causal fallacies, the writer attempts logical analysis but never refers to
any unstated assumptions. Furthermore, several errors in grammar and sentence structure interfere with
meaning (e.g., “This statement looks like logical, but there are some wrong sentences in it which is not
logical.”).
Because this response “does not follow the directions for the assigned task” (see the Argument Scoring
Guide, p. 31) and contains errors in sentence structure and logical development, it earns a score of 2.
Essay Response – Score 1
The statement assumes that everyone in Mason City enjoys some sort of recreational activity, which may
not be necessarily true. They statement also assumes that if the state cleans up the river, the use of the river
for water sports will definitely increase.
Reader Commentary for Essay Response – Score 1
The brevity of this two-sentence response makes it fundamentally deficient. Sentence one states an
assumption that is actually not present in the argument, and sentence two correctly states an assumption but
provides no discussion of its implications. Although the response may begin to address the assigned task, it
offers no development. As such, it is clearly “extremely brief . . ., providing little evidence of an organized
response” (see Argument Scoring Guide, p. 31) and should earn a score of 1.
No comments:
Post a Comment