The argument is about a trend that explains the changes in appetite and price of the California consumers of oyster for buying the Gulf Coast ones. Regarding to the issue, the author of this argument concludes that people might willingly buy more Gulf Coast oysters after five years because the assumption, which is related to the harmful bacteria in raw Gulf Coast oysters, have removed. He presents evidence to suggest this is valid based on a new process for killing these bacteria. Though this underlying issue might have true in some cases, because of the lack of relevant evidence, vague terminology, and unaddressed assumption, the author's argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
The first point to mention is about the vague and incomplete information about Gulf Coast oysters. In fact, the author does not provide enough evidence and validated data about the amount of raw oysters that is harmful. He also could not explain a cogent relationship between the harmful oysters and its price reduction. If the author tends to attribute the price reduction of Gulf Coast oysters to their harmful bacteria, he must contain a valid comparison about the pervious price and then the less demand of people for consuming this kind of oyster after that fact. Moreover, the author does not specify other reasons that cause the reduction in Gulf Coast oysters' price such as taste and availability or other concealed factors.
Another problem with the argument is that the author has not mentioned the procedure of that modification. As a matter of a fact, the author does not cite about the process and the percentage of its success. To strengthen his claims, he should mention how scientist applied their method and what ratio of the infected oysters have removed. There is a possibility that their remedy was not impressive and the oysters are continuously harmful for people. In this regard, the people are not convinced to buy more from Gulf Coast oysters. Additionally, if we assume that the reduction in that region oyster is because of its harmful effect, the author must provide cogent and logical evidence to persuade people and then ensure more profit for those producers of Gulf Coast oysters.
Finally yet importantly, the argument is about five years ago. The author cited that based on changes on that time in oyster market, tackling the infected oysters and remove them might result in greater profit. However, this point is not well grounded. In fact, as the time passes, the things change and it seems absurd if we consider only that reason in the profitability of Gulf Coast oyster.
From what have been discussed, it is obvious that the author cannot provide a logical argument and cogent conclusion. For further improvement, this argument needs more detail data or economical consideration to find some scientific reasons for price reduction of Gulf Coast oyster and in that condition better solution for addressing this issue might be found.
- People today spend too much time on personal enjoyment-doing things they like to do-rather than doing things they should do. 79
- TPO-17 - Integrated Writing Task In the past century, the steady growth of the human population and the corresponding increase in agriculture and pesticide use have caused much harm to wildlife in the United States,birds in particular. Unfortunately for b 80
- TPO-29 - Integrated Writing Task Large numbers of dinosaur fossils have been discovered in deposits on Alaska's North Slope, a region that today experiences an extremely cold,arctic climate. One hundred million years ago, when those dinosaurs were alive, 80
- TPO-04 - Independent Writing Task Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today.Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 81
- TPO-09 - Integrated Writing Task Car manufacturers and governments have been eagerly seeking a replacement for the automobile's main source of power, the internal-combustion engine. By far the most promising alternative source of energy for cars is the hy 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 640, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nology, and unaddressed assumption, the authors argument is unsubstantiated and deeply ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...those producers of Gulf Coast oysters. Finally yet importantly, the argument is about ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, well, in fact, kind of, such as, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2483.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07770961145 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.58531195209 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441717791411 0.468620217663 94% => OK
syllable_count: 762.3 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.4723283356 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.238095238 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2857142857 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.379756944795 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119323394002 0.0743258471296 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102304488353 0.0701772020484 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.239354574672 0.128457276422 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.08013497525 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.