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.
In the letter, the author concludes that the preservation of the beaches and buildings will improve the condition of Tria’s tourist industry in the long term. In making his conclusion, the author assumes that by charging the tourist he can raise money for replenishing sand, which he thinks will be enough for protecting the buildings along the Tria’s shore as it helped to protect those of Batia’s. However, the author’s argument is flawed for three reasons.
First of all, the author assumed that if they charge the tourists, only a few of them will be annoyed for a short time. But it may not be true. Moreover, the additional charge could discourage an immense number of tourists to visit Tria, thereby making the condition worse than ever. Similarly, if lesser people visit Tria, the estimated fund will not be collected for the desired solution stated by the author. If this is true, then the author’s argument is weakened.
Secondly, the author presumed the problem of Batia’s similar to that of Tria’s. However, it might not be the case. The buildings of Batia’s might be facing other problems than erosion, which were solved by replenishing sand. However, replenishing sand may not help to protect the buildings of Tria’s. This explanation only helps to prove that the argument of the author is flawed.
Finally, the author presented the buildings as the reason for tourists’ attraction, and if the buildings are destroyed, tourists will not come. But it may also be a false assumption, and tourists may be attracted by the beach and natural elements of Tria. Therefore it is necessary to protect the beach, not the buildings to stop tourists to go elsewhere. And, if this is the case, it is only weakening the argument of the author.
To sum up, it is evident that the author's argument is flawed and based on some unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, the author needs to remove the flaws by studying the problem and possible solutions with more reliable data to make his conclusion pristine.
| 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 |
- A national curriculum for schools 79
- Claim Group assignments that students must work together to complete should replace a substantial amount of traditional lecture based instruction in college and university courses Reason It is vital for students to gain experience collaborating with peers 66
- Political leaders should withhold information from public 66
- Some people believe that scientific discoveries have given us a much better understanding of the world around us Others believe that science has revealed to us that the world is infinitely more complex than we ever realized 83
- There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual wo 68
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 338 350
No. of Characters: 1616 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.288 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.781 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.552 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.13 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.875 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.598 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 256, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...the beach and natural elements of Tria. Therefore it is necessary to protect the beach, n...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 35, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hor. To sum up, it is evident that the authors argument is flawed and based on some un...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, therefore, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1689.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 338.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99704142012 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71890271758 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497041420118 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.6432145762 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.8947368421 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7894736842 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73684210526 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143171391808 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048850396639 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469016551539 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0876276762523 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0561077608899 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.