The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”
According to the given petition sent by an environmental protection group to the residents of Youngtown, it is easy to understand that the protection group wants to prohibit the Smith Corporation from developing the land. The author has also presented some points in support to his claim, one such being the disastrous consequences due to the proposed development and other being the drop of sale benefit of their community due to the development of a small hotel in that area. Though the author's argument looks plausible to some extent, it is rife with loopholes and some baseless assumptions which makes the argument weaker.
Starting with the author's implications, the author asserts that the sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in their area. Here, the author has failed to provide proper information regarding, how is the sanctuary essential for the species survival, what are the factors they are taking to save such species. Even, its quite ambiguous to understand whether the 300 bird species are from their sanctuary or is it present in the whole Youngtown. The author needs to back his premise with suitable information.
Moving forward, the author goes on to imply that though a small percentage of land is given to smith the proposed development will have disastrous consequences in their area. Here, again the author fails to provide a valid and concrete evidence that proves the disastrous consequence due to the proposed development. Even, the term "proposed development" in itself doesn't lead the argument anywhere. Without properly knowing what exactly was the proposed development, its hard to predict how can such a development in a small area be hazardous to complete area. The author need to come up with a thorough analysis and strong evidence.
Building upon the implications, the author further states that the company plans to build a small hotel and also promises to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary. The author doesn't stop here and continues with an assumption that their plan would only harm the sanctuary. Now, talking about the previous and current premise combinedly, it looks quite contradictory how can a small hotel be a disastor to their area. Moreover, the author even has failed to mention the reason again, without specific reason of the harm that a small hotel could provide its impossible to come to a conclusion. It is easy to understand that there could have been a harm to the sanctuary if they were building a factory that emits toxic wastes damaging the ecosystem over there. But, without proper proof its just hard to belive anything that the author tries to say.
Lastly, the author comes up with a new premise stating the sales would impact the community as the sales are totally dependant upon the tourists and the tourists merely visit due to the bird population. Now, again there may be a very likely possibility of an increase in sale due to the development of small hotel because it may be the case that tourist might find it hard to get a hotel nearby the sanctuary. And building such hotel would in turn bring a major revenue to the community. The author has to prove his point on why such small hotel would reduce the sales.
Based upon the points stated above, its confirmed that the argument has various segments of misinformation and lack of analysis. Without proper, valid and representative evidence its hard for the residents to belive and take action. However, its true that there may be some possibilities that would harm the magnificient bird population if the environment is hampered. But without proper reason and root cause analysis its quite difficult to conclude that Smith Corporation must not be permitted to develop the land. In order to strenghten his/her argument the author needs to perform a good research by keeping the above stated points in mind.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-07 | Saket Choudhary | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-10-23 | mausam | 30 | view |
| 2022-10-23 | mausam | 50 | view |
| 2021-11-18 | Rafid_Murshed | 78 | view |
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition 66
- The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve This sanctuary is essent 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 16 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 651 350
No. of Characters: 3168 1500
No. of Different Words: 269 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.051 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.866 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.647 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 210 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.346 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.407 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 490, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... a small hotel in that area. Though the authors argument looks plausible to some extent...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 376, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...os;proposed development' in itself doesnt lead the argument anywhere. Without pro...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 179, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...eservation of the sanctuary. The author doesnt stop here and continues with an assumpt...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 586, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'good research'.
Suggestion: good research
...er argument the author needs to perform a good research by keeping the above stated points in m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, regarding, so, as to, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 90.0 55.5748502994 162% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3249.0 2260.96107784 144% => OK
No of words: 648.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01388888889 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04537849152 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75737318849 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 281.0 204.123752495 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.433641975309 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1005.3 705.55239521 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.1547957258 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25925925926 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14424029068 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420751900497 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785518119561 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.085320499553 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0686996391021 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 141.0 98.500998004 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.