Test Essay Responses and Rater Commentary for the Argument Task

Test Essay Responses and Rater Commentary for the Argument Task

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 satisfies the requirements for the rating. For a far more complete comprehension of the requirements for every rating point, start to see the “Analyze an Argument” Scoring Guide.

In studies Mason City residents rank water recreations (swimming, sailing and fishing) amongst their favorite recreational use. The Mason River moving through the town is hardly ever employed for these activities, nevertheless, together with town park division devotes little of the budget to riverside that is maintaining facilities. For a long time there has been complaints from residents in regards to the quality for the river’s water and also the river’s scent. As a result, the continuing state has established intends to tidy up 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 present year’s budget to riverside recreational facilities.

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

Essay Reaction — Score 6

This author’s argument does not make a cogent case for increased resources based on river use while it may be true that the Mason City government ought to devote more money to riverside recreational facilities. You can easily understand just why town residents would desire a cleaner river, but this argument is rife with holes and presumptions, and so, perhaps maybe not strong adequate to lead to funding that is increased.

Citing studies of town residents, the author states town resident’s love of water activities. It is really not clear, nonetheless, the validity and scope of this study. For instance, the study might have expected residents when they choose with the river for water recreations or wish to notice a hydroelectric dam built, 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 have now been 10 pages very very long, with 2 questions aimed at river activities. We simply don’t know. Unless the study is completely representative, legitimate, and reliable, it may perhaps maybe maybe not be used to effortlessly back the writer’s argument.

Also, the writer signifies that residents don’t use the river for swimming, sailing, and fishing, despite their professed interest, because 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 were complaints, we have no idea if there has been numerous complaints from a wide number of individuals, or simply in one 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 do not use the river because of the quality regarding the river’s water plus the odor, the writer implies that a river tidy up can lead to increased river use. In the event that river’s water quality and smell result from dilemmas and that can be washed, this might be real. For instance, if the decreased water quality and aroma is brought on by air pollution by factories across the river, this conceivably might be remedied. But if the quality and aroma outcomes through the mineral that is natural in water or surrounding rock, this isn’t always real. There are figures of water which emit a smell that is strong of because of the geography associated with the area. This isn’t one thing probably 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 improved or otherwise not, the writer doesn’t efficiently show a match up between water quality and river use.

On a clean, stunning, safe river usually contributes to a town’s home values, results in increased tourism and income from those that started to make use of the river, and a significantly better general well being for residents. For those reasons, city federal government might wish to spend money on enhancing riverside facilities that are recreational. But, this author’s argument is certainly not most most likely somewhat persuade the populous city goverment to allocate increased capital.

Rater Commentary for Essay Response — Score 6

This insightful reaction identifies crucial presumptions and thoroughly examines their implications. The essay suggests that the proposition to pay more on riverside leisure facilities rests on three debateable presumptions, specifically:

  • that the study provides a dependable foundation for budget preparation
  • that the river’s air pollution and odor would be the only cause of its restricted use that is recreational
  • that efforts to wash the water and take away the smell will become successful

By showing that all assumption is extremely suspect, this essay shows the weakness associated with argument that is entire. For instance, paragraph 2 highlights that the study might possibly not have utilized a representative test, could have offered restricted choices, and may have contained not many concerns on water-based activities.

Paragraph 3 examines the tenuous connection between complaints and restricted utilization of the river for entertainment. Complaints about water quality and smell might be originating from just some people and|people that are few, even in the event such complaints are wide ranging, other very different facets could be far more significant in reducing river use. Finally, paragraph 4 describes 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 each brand new point develops upon the last people. As an example, note the clear transitions at the start of paragraphs 3 and 4, along with the rational sequence of sentences within paragraphs (specifically paragraph 4).

Even though this essay does include small mistakes, it still conveys some ideas fluently. Note the effective term alternatives (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.

Since this reaction offers cogent examination of the argument and conveys meaning skillfully, it earns a rating of 6.

Essay Reaction — Score 5

Mcdougal of the proposition to improve the cover Mason City riverside recreational facilities has an interesting argument but to go ahead on the proposition would certainly need more info and thought. As the correlations stated are rational and likely, concealed facets that avoid the populous City from diverting resources to the task.

For instance, look at the survey ranks among Mason City residents. The idea such regard that is high water-based activities will result in use. But, study responses can scarcely be properly used as indicators of real behavior. Many studies carried out after the wintertime vacations expose individuals who list exercise and losing weight being a priority that is top. Yet every career doesn’t equal a brand brand new fitness center account. perhaps the wording associated with the study outcomes remain 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 regarding the average man or woman. Do they prefer these water-based activities above a softball industry or soccer field? Will they be prepared to sacrifice the golf that is municipal for better riverside facilities? Certainly the study scarcely provides information that is enough discern future usage of improved facilities.

Closely for this studies may be the assumption that is bold a cleaner river can lead to increased usage. Although it’s perhaps not illogical to anticipate some increase, at exactly what level will individuals start to utilize the river? The response to this concern calls for to get out of the reasons our residents utilize or don’t use the river. Is river water quality the primary restricting factor to usage or perhaps the not enough docks and piers? Are people keen on water-based activities compared to the outdoor recreation that they have been currently involved with? These concerns can help the town federal government forecast just exactly how river that is much will increase also to designate a proportional enhance into the spending plan.

Likewise, is positive concerning the continuing state vow the river. hear the origin associated with the sounds and give consideration to any motives that are ulterior. Is it a campaign 12 months plus the plans a campaign promise through the state agent? What’s the schedule for the effort that is clean-up? Will the state fully fund this task? We are able to imagine the abuse of funds in renovating the riverside facilities simply to watch the brand brand new structures fall into dilapidation although their state drags the river clean-up.

Final, will not give consideration to where these funds that are additional be redirected from. The present spending plan situation needs to be examined to find out if this enhance may 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. naively assumes that the cash can appear without forethought simply on where it will probably originate from.

custom dissertation writing

Examining most of the angles that are various factors associated with increasing riverside leisure facilities, the argument doesn’t justify increasing the spending plan. Even though the proposal does highlight a chance, additional information justify any action.

No responses yet

Post a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *