In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
The author of claim assumes that for the sake of the difference between two surveys conducted by the same research group, in the first study, the respondents did not present the accurate data about their reading habits. It is a claim which rests on the series of vague surmises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
The first shaky hypothesis is about the evaluation of two surveys. Although the study had been done by the same research group, it does not guarantee that both of them are identical to be capable for comparison. The valid comparison regards complete details and as long as the both case studies have the unique features, the accuracy of the comparison is fortified. In this case, there is no clear data about the case studies of two surveys. Maybe at the first study, one portion of the people is evaluated, and this scoop varies from the second cluster. Thereby the comparison of two diverse groups for seeking a desired outcome is a fatuous expectation.
The next problem with the argument is related to the surmise that the author considers the public library as the principal and sole resource for borrowing books. Actually, there is a list of doubt on the accuracy of this consideration. For instance, there are other places such as the bookstores and the private library where the people can check out the books. Maybe these ignored places number is more than the quantity of the public libraries. Besides, people borrow the classical literature from these locations. Or perhaps, the public library does not provide the adequate resource for the classical literature. As a result, people are obliged to borrow the mystery novels from them. The argument would have been strengthened if the author had explicitly presented the statistical value of the places for the borrowing books and the public library covers the large ratio of these places.
Finally, even the public library includes the huge portion of the lending books areas; the hypothesis is doubtful due to the vague term of frequently. The author asserts that the frequent books have been checked out from the public are mystery books. The ambiguous term of frequently could not illustrate the people's actual tastes and desires. Maybe they borrow the mystery book, but they do not convince by its contents and return to the library. Or perhaps people purchase their favorite books _classical literature- and they do not need to borrow them from the library. Otherwise, the mystery books are checked out from the library since individuals do reluctance to have it as the favorable book in their home bookshelves. Each scenario would present a possible reason for the frequent checking out of mystery novel apart from the people's desire to reading the mystery novels.
All in all, the argument is flow for the reasons mentioned above. It could have been persuasive if the author had presented the data related to the similarity between two case studies, statistical information about the available spots for lending books. Moreover, the term of frequently lucidly demonstrates the people's desire. Otherwise, the hypothesis is dangling and opens to the debates.
- tpo3 3
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of Butler Manufacturing."During the past year, workers at Butler Manufacturing reported 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than workers at nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one 69
- Claim: Imagination is a more valuable asset than experience.Reason: People who lack experience are free to imagine what is possible without the constraints of established habits and attitudes. 58
- tpo41 86
- Claim: Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today.Reason: We are not able to make connections between current events and past events until we have some distance from both.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to 79
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be challenged in one way or another. The first shaky hypothesis is about the ...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'besides', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'apart from', 'for instance', 'such as', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251748251748 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.138111888112 0.15541462614 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0891608391608 0.0836205057962 107% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0437062937063 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0244755244755 0.0272364105082 90% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124125874126 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0402097902098 0.0416121511921 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.57976356385 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0174825174825 0.026700313972 65% => OK
Particles: 0.0034965034965 0.001811407834 193% => OK
Determiners: 0.167832167832 0.113004496875 149% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0104895104895 0.0255425247493 41% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00699300699301 0.0127820249294 55% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3170.0 2731.13054187 116% => OK
No of words: 525.0 446.07635468 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.0380952381 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.380952380952 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.293333333333 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184761904762 0.208842608468 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.110476190476 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57976356385 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445714285714 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.6159182177 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 19.4444444444 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.6291894589 57.7814097925 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.407407407 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4444444444 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 48.7777777778 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 2.01694915254 1.8405768891 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.469238707964 0.441005458295 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119255921707 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0771530416192 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.618487754104 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.123787153794 0.147661913831 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.213446322893 0.193483328276 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0870921324357 0.0970749176394 90% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.636602975569 0.42659136922 149% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0541805548337 0.0774707102158 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.372285543574 0.312017818177 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0642344520458 0.0698173142475 92% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 9.0 2.82389162562 319% => OK
Total topic words: 23.0 14.657635468 157% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.