Blog

Test Essay reactions and Rater Commentary when it comes to Argument Task

Test Essay reactions and Rater Commentary when it comes to Argument Task

The test essays that follow were written in reaction in to the prompt that seems below. The rater commentary that follows each essay that is sample the way the 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 recreations (swimming, sailing and fishing) among all of their favorite outdoor recreation. The Mason River moving through the town is seldom useful for these activities, nonetheless, in addition to town park division devotes little of its spending plan to maintaining riverside recreational facilities. For decades there has been complaints from residents in regards to the quality associated with the river’s water as well as the river’s smell. Responding, the continuing state has established intends to cleanup Mason River. Utilization of the river for water recreations is consequently certain to increase. The town federal federal government need for this reason devote more cash in this current year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities.

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

Essay Reaction — Score 6

Whilst it could be real that the Mason City federal government need to devote additional money to riverside leisure facilities, this author’s argument doesn’t make a cogent case for increased resources predicated on river usage. You can easily realize why town residents would wish a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and so, maybe maybe maybe not strong sufficient to lead to increased capital.

Citing studies of town residents, the writer states town resident’s passion for water activities. It isn’t clear, but, the validity and scope of the study. For instance, the study might have expected residents when they choose utilizing the river for water activities or wish to notice a hydroelectric dam built, which may have swayed residents toward river activities. The test might n’t have been representative of town residents, asking just those residents who reside upon the river. The study might have now been 10 pages long, with 2 concerns aimed at river activities. We simply don’t know. Unless the study is completely representative, legitimate, and dependable, it may not be employed to efficiently back mcdougal’s argument.

Also, the writer suggests that residents don’t use the river for swimming, sailing, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because water is polluted and smelly. While a polluted, smelly river would probably lessen river recreations, a tangible connection amongst the resident’s shortage of river usage plus the river’s present state just isn’t efficiently made. Though there were complaints, we don’t know if there has been many complaints from a range that is wide of, or maybe in one or two people who made many complaints. To bolster his/her argument, the writer would take advantage of applying a normed study asking many residents why they cannot presently make use of the river.

Building upon the implication that residents don’t use the river as a result of the quality associated with the river’s water additionally 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 may be washed, this might be real. For instance, if the decreased water quality and aroma is due to air pollution by factories across the river, this conceivably might be remedied. If the quality and aroma outcomes through the natural calcium deposits in water or surrounding stone, it isn’t really real. There are numerous figures of water which emit a good scent of sulphur as a result of geography regarding the area. It is not one thing apt to 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 otherwise not, the writer doesn’t effortlessly show a match up between water quality and river use.

A clear, breathtaking, safe river usually contributes to a town’s home values, contributes to increased tourism and topics for research papers income from people who visited use the river, and an improved general well being for residents. For those reasons, city government might wish to spend money on increasing riverside leisure facilities. But, this author’s argument is certainly not most most likely considerably persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased money.

Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6

This response that is insightful crucial presumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The essay implies that the proposition to pay more on riverside facilities that are recreational on three dubious presumptions, specifically:

  • that the study supplies a basis that is reliable budget planning
  • that the river’s air pollution and odor would be the only cause of its limited recreational usage
  • that efforts to wash the water and eliminate the smell will achieve success

By showing that all presumption is extremely suspect, this essay shows the weakness regarding the whole argument. For instance, paragraph 2 points out that the study may possibly not have utilized a representative test, could have provided restricted alternatives, and could have included hardly any concerns on water recreations.

Paragraph 3 examines the connection that is tenuous complaints and restricted utilization of the river for relaxation. Complaints about water quality and odor might be originating from just a few individuals and|people that are few, just because such complaints are wide ranging, other different facets can be much more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 describes geologic features may avoid effective river clean-up. Details such since these give support that is compelling.

In addition, careful company helps to ensure that each and every brand new point develops upon the earlier ones. As an example, note the clear transitions at the start of paragraphs 3 and 4, plus the rational series of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).

Although this essay does include errors that are minor 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 only diverse; they even show skillful embedding of subordinate elements.

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

Essay Reaction — Score 5

Mcdougal of the proposition the plan for Mason City riverside leisure facilities has an argument that is interesting to go ahead in the proposition would certainly require more info and thought. Although the correlations stated are rational and likely, there could be concealed facets that stop the City from diverting resources to the project.

for instance, look at the survey ranks among Mason City residents. The idea is the fact that such high respect for water recreations will lead to usage. But, survey responses can barely be utilized as indicators of real behavior. Numerous studies carried out after the wintertime breaks expose those who list workout and losing weight as being a priority. Yet every occupation doesn’t equal a brand new gymnasium account. 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 is the priorities associated with public that is general. Do they favor these water-based activities above a softball field or soccer field? Will they be happy 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 assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Whilst it’s maybe not illogical you may anticipate some enhance, at exactly what level will individuals start to make use of the river? The response to this concern requires out of the reasons our residents utilize or don’t use the river. Is river water quality the limiting that is primary to usage or the not enough docks and piers? Are people interested in water-based activities compared to the outdoor recreation that they’ve been currently involved in? These concerns helps the town government forecast just how much river use will increase also to designate a proportional enhance into the spending plan.

Likewise, the writer is optimistic about the continuing state promise the river. We have to notice the origin associated with the sounds and start thinking about any motives that are ulterior. Is this a campaign 12 months additionally the plans a campaign vow through the state representative? What’s the timeline when it comes to effort that is clean-up? Will the continuing state fully fund this task? We could imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities simply to view the buildings that are new into dilapidation as the state drags the river clean-up.

Final, the writer will not give consideration to where these extra funds will be redirected from. The budget that is current must certanly be evaluated to find out 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. The writer naively assumes that the funds can appear without forethought simply on where it’s going to result from.

Examining all of the different perspectives and facets associated with increasing riverside recreational facilities, the argument will not justify enhancing the spending plan. Even though the proposal does highlight a chance, more details justify any action.