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
