The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
"Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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.
The author of the prompt claims that because the town’s strong commitment to recycling material, particularly, paper, plastic, and metal, the available space in the landfill predicted to be completely filled within five years, should last for considerably longer. In order for this argument to have weight, we need to examine several evidence including the data of garbage disposal this year compared to two years ago, the data of recycle material disposed annually, as well as the commitment of the respondents to a recent survey stating that more than 90 percent of the respondents would do more recycling in the future.
To begin with, the argument appeared in that memorandum might be interesting with information included by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council, yet this argument hinges on several information unstated in that memorandum. In order to prove the argument, we need to know the data showing the garbage disposal this year and two years ago. If we find the number of garbage disposal is equal or more than the maximum garbage disposed to prevent the landfill full, then the argument written in that memorandum would become fallacious.
Turning to second evidence that we should find out, we need to examine the amount of other garbage such as chemical solution, organic matters, utensils made from wood, and so on and so forth. If the amount of this kind of garbage is large enough to fill the landfill completely within 5 years, then it would not be enough to recycle paper, plastic, and metal only to other useful products. In such a case, the argument claiming that the available space in the landfill should last more than 5 years would be invalid.
Even if we find that the amount of garbage disposal does not increase significantly and the amount of garbage including plastic, metal, and paper, is much more than other various garbage, it does not necessarily mean that the landfill would be all but impossible to be filled within five years. The author states that over 90 percent of the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future. In order for this argument to be convincing, we need to know whether the survey is sufficiently representative and whether the survey has been large enough to draw broad conclusion. If the survey is only done to 25 people from more than 1 million people inhibiting that area, then the survey would be not cogent. Moreover, although the respondents said that they would do more recycling in the future, it might or might not be true that they would do as what they said. If the people actually broke their promise, then the validity of the argument would be apocryphal.
To put it in a nutshell, the argument written in that memorandum hinges on several unstated and dubious assumption. It would be rash to conclude that the landfill would not be filled within 5 years merely by using the stated information. It would be prudent to examine other unstated evidence such as the amount of garbage disposed this year compared to two years ago, the amount of other garbage excluding paper, plastic, and metal, as well as the commitment and the validity of the survey. With this information in place, the claim would not be only convincing, but cogent.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-04 | sanket007 | 69 | view |
| 2019-08-03 | sanket007 | 86 | view |
| 2019-01-05 | swappy1996 | 23 | view |
| 2018-12-29 | missionfission | 26 | view |
| 2018-08-26 | bokachodajamy | 39 | view |
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.W 50
- Smart cars 86
- Dinosaurs 86
- Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium—substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore say that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease that is linked to both environmental 66
- There will be fewer cars in use in twenty years. 73
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun evidence seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some evidence'.
Suggestion: some evidence
...ment to have weight, we need to examine several evidence including the data of garbage disposal ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun information seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some information'.
Suggestion: some information
...wn Council, yet this argument hinges on several information unstated in that memorandum. In order t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'if', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'kind of', 'such as', 'as well as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.21767594108 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.145662847791 0.15541462614 94% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0785597381342 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0703764320786 0.0520304965353 135% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0294599018003 0.0272364105082 108% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132569558101 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0441898527005 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.61509631438 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0392798690671 0.026700313972 147% => OK
Particles: 0.00163666121113 0.001811407834 90% => OK
Determiners: 0.109656301146 0.113004496875 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0327332242226 0.0255425247493 128% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00163666121113 0.0127820249294 13% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3250.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 552.0 446.07635468 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.88768115942 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84713113593 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.358695652174 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.260869565217 0.287650121315 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.182971014493 0.208842608468 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0923913043478 0.135150697306 68% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61509631438 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.36231884058 0.469332199767 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 42.3412398684 52.1807786196 81% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 30.6666666667 23.2022227129 132% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.078703559 57.7814097925 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 180.555555556 141.986410481 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.6666666667 23.2022227129 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.724660767414 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 56.7536231884 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 1.60666666667 1.8405768891 87% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.504480114616 0.441005458295 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137755015283 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.060289509409 0.0829849096947 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.637202472448 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.118997849599 0.147661913831 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24975132716 0.193483328276 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0899312555655 0.0970749176394 93% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.580701093338 0.42659136922 136% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0451801472364 0.0774707102158 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.380855956677 0.312017818177 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631773642051 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.