The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin.
The argument that illegal immigrants must be deported to their country of origin is not entirely logically convincing, since it makes some fallacious assumptions along the way. No example has been stated to solidify the claims made in the argument, so one can only analyse the nature of the causal relationship drawn by the author.
First, the argument assumes that deporting illegal immigrants will keep the economy and national identity of the nation intact. There is no further evidence given to prove that this will get rid of the threats to the nation. It starts by claiming that a failure to count the illegal immigrants leads to 'endangering' of the country, but does not establish that there are no other factors that would harm a country's economy, and that this is truly what is causing economy-related problems.
Second, on further analysis, we observe that the argument links the ability to count illegal immigrants to a threat to the national identity. It is that very ability that could be critiqued; the author assumes that an increase in the number of illegal immigrants will harm the nation. What about a country that has centers where illegal immigrants can seek asylum or refuge, thus being able to count the number of such immigrants? The author blindly seems to assume that this is not possible, and that there is no way to solve the problem of registering these people.
Finally, even if we assume that a country is not able to set up centers for these people to seek asylum, the author seems to blame the immigrants for the threats to the nation. The economy and national identity, as they imply, are built upon the strength of a country's borders. But by deporting illegal immigrants, the borders are no stronger. They remain as they were, and immigrants can still illegally cross them. The author here seems to assume that the immigrants, once deported, will not return.
Thus, the argument is not sound, with insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion drawn by the author. If the assumptions that we made (above) for the author prove unwarranted, then the conclusion is provably incorrectly drawn, as discussed. The argument could have been strengthened if the author proved that an increase in the number of illegal immigrants harms the nation, and that the borders of this nation are already well-sealed, with no ways for such people to re-enter. The current form of the argument made, with these pitfalls, fails to address these points.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-11 | Kaira | 48 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | BusariMoruf | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-14 | Gnyana | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-28 | Technoblade | 70 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | aiswaryae | 50 | view |
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 58
- The way a message is delivered is often more important than the message itself Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and suppor 64
- In fall 2010 the Transportation Security Administration TSA stepped up its security efforts in US airports by incorporating random full body searches as part of its counterterrorism efforts These full body searches were a response to the refusal of some p 73
- The following editorial appeared in the Broomall County Times Picayune The Gordon Act which established a wildlife refuge in the Big Dark Swamp is currently up for reauthorization The act prohibits the building of roads or cutting of old growth trees in t 66
- The following appeared in a health newsletter A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whereas today that number i 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2004 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.829 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.528 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.056 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.966 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.358 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, second, so, still, then, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2062.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.9686746988 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62654360535 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.453012048193 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 637.2 705.55239521 90% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1661840971 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.555555556 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0555555556 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.33333333333 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28799750246 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101138642483 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825893507635 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177554806824 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669984775941 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.