The following is a letter to the head of the Tourism Bureau on the island of Tria.
“Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
This argument is well yet far-fetched. It lays a claim that the island of Tria should take a series of protected methods to save their beaches, and improve tourist industry over a long time. Nevertheless, due to several flaws after scrutiny, the argument has to establish some pieces of evidence to make the statement more convincing.
First of all, a problem arises in the argument that to charge the fee to tourists could make enough money to replenish the sand on beaches. However, this contention is never clear pointing out that if they charge the additional fee to people for the beaches, the tourists will still take a trip to the island of Tria. The contents do not show any information about how captivation the island is. The readers cannot sure whether Tria can still have many tourists, even they charge the fee. Maybe, once they start to do it, people are not willing to go there, and the money which the island will receive is very little. Hence, without accounting for and ruling out other likely scenarios, by no means could the author contend that the manner to protect will work on the island.
In addition, another problem is the writer states replenishing the sand could really help to the buildings along shores as Batia. Nonetheless, this is meaningless since Tria and Batia are two totally different places. In this light, it is reasonable to cast doubts upon presumption which made by the author because the presumption actually is inadequate in that the experience in Batia may not suitable to Tria because the reason of the losing sand is different. For example, the reason in Tria might be the losing or the heavy using of the groundwater. The losing of the groundwater could subside the level of the ground, and cause the sea water take off the sand on beaches. Pursuing this reasoning proves that the writer has the responsibility to carefully consider his assumption and then provide cogent evidence to pave the way for a more reliable augment.
Ultimately, even if the previous assumptions might turn out to be supported by subsequently detailed illustration, a crucial problem remains that how is the truth of the erosion on the island of Tria? It may really have some erosion on beaches but it is entirely possible would not make any hurt in the tourist industry because the beaches in such erosion can still keep in an excellent situation. Alternatively, the erosion is a routine erosion. Every couples of years the beaches will decrease, and in other years, the beaches will increase. In order to confirm his point of view, the writer should pay close heed to as well as address the representative probabilities mentioned above. Only specific evidence to show that the beaches will have not recovering hurt is the key to bolstering his advice.
In hindsight, it seems precipitous for the author to make the summary based on a sequence of problematic premises. To eliminate the implausibility of recommendation, the author must offer the more specific evidence mention on the above.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | Ifthekhar | 53 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | Kuldip851 | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-28 | Ruthvik_542 | 59 | view |
| 2022-09-25 | Vaishnavi Dixit | 67 | view |
| 2022-09-12 | Bolu | 75 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate. 50
- Some jobs can pay high salaries but require employees to leave their family and friends. Other jobs pay few salaries but allow employees to stay with family and friends. Which job do you perfer and why? 70
- People's attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 58
- Some people suggest that using a cleaner energy to pretect the environment is better, but some people say the traditional energy source such as coal and oil is less expensice, what is your suggestion. 66
- Summarize the points made in the lecture being sure to explain how they challenge the specific arguments presented in the reading passage 52
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- need to argue this:
And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2453 1500
No. of Different Words: 247 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.791 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.647 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.593 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.272 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.501 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.06 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, really, so, still, then, well, as to, for example, in addition, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2519.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.919921875 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74296015535 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.498046875 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 787.5 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3078893548 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.52173913 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2608695652 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04347826087 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.22025335398 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0579404125481 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459548208969 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103786816088 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638513234738 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.