The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper:
“If the paper from every morning edition of the nation’s largest newspaper were collected
and rendered into paper pulp that the newspaper could reuse, about 5 million trees would
be saved each year. This kind of recycling is unnecessary, however, since the newspaper
maintains its own forests to ensure an uninterrupted supply of paper.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument that recycling of garbage paper to reproduce for use in order to save millions of trees is useless since newspaper maintain its own woodland is not entirely logically convincing, because it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
Firstly, the argument assumes that owning of forest made recycling unnecessary but they got over the benefits of recycling as reducing pollution. Nation's largest newspaper sold millions of copies and that is a great amount of paper. Manufacturers produced at least 50000 papers from a pine tree. According to given data, 5 million trees produce approximately 250 billion pieces of paper. Certainly, recycling is more environmentalist than the other one that disappearance of those papers will take decades in the natura.
Secondly, the argument never addressed chemical concerns about newspapers' supply. Many big manufacturers use industrial planting to grow its spice of tree for their use like IKEA which is a famous Swedish company that produces its furniture. But there are many complaints from customers about that products and many scientists claim that they are owning risks to health, especially to children. For example, it is possible that newspaper's supply of paper contain similar chemical that could threat readers life.
Thirdly, the argument omits financial details about both methods. Argument provide nothing related to cost of recycling or maintaining its own forests. It is impossible to decide why newspaper's executives prefer one method in contrast the other. From Author's conclusion, knows exactly recycling isn't important but neither provide reason nor provide data.
Thus, the argument is not completely sound.
The evidence in support of conclusion most countries support manufacturers that prefers recycling in order to save world and financially provide aid to them. Additionally, proclaiming using recycling both make happy NGOs as Greenpeace and locals because both are willing to clean nature.
Ultimately, the argument might have been weakened by flaws and under ailed assumption in Author's argument
- The following statement appeared in a consumer magazine:A fear of crime has led many homeowners to purchase monitored burglar alarmsystems, but these people are wasting their money. The primary benefit of anyburglar alarm system is one of deterrence, and 50
- Some people say that the Internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think access to so much information creates problems. Which view do you agree with? 80
- Knowing about the past cannot help people to make important decisions today 50
- The following statement appeared in a consumer magazine:A fear of crime has led many homeowners to purchase monitored burglar alarm systems, but these people are wasting their money. The primary benefit of any burglar alarm system is one of deterrence, an 50
- The following appeared as part of a column in a popular entertainment magazine:“The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize theirprofits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it—eventh 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 265, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f paper. Manufacturers produced at least 50000 papers from a pine tree. According...
^^
Line 5, column 344, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...cts and many scientists claim that they are owning risks to health, especially to children...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 296, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ors conclusion, knows exactly recycling isnt important but neither provide reason no...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'at least', 'for example', 'in contrast']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270348837209 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.168604651163 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0959302325581 0.0836205057962 115% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0552325581395 0.0520304965353 106% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031976744186 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0610465116279 0.0416121511921 147% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.8539382381 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.031976744186 0.026700313972 120% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0610465116279 0.113004496875 54% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00872093023256 0.0255425247493 34% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0174418604651 0.0127820249294 136% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2091.0 2731.13054187 77% => OK
No of words: 315.0 446.07635468 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.6380952381 6.12365571057 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.57801047555 92% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.444444444444 0.378187486979 118% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.380952380952 0.287650121315 132% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.260317460317 0.208842608468 125% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.161904761905 0.135150697306 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8539382381 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 207.018472906 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.625396825397 0.469332199767 133% => OK
Word variations: 73.342064327 52.1807786196 141% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 17.5 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8732439733 57.7814097925 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.166666667 141.986410481 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.722222222222 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 55.5952380952 51.9672348444 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.78409090909 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295253628215 0.441005458295 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0400103415831 0.135418324435 30% => Sentence sentence coherence is low.
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0420245532763 0.0829849096947 51% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.564720085836 0.58762219726 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.228225162982 0.147661913831 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106851324319 0.193483328276 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685624537075 0.0970749176394 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.157983665327 0.42659136922 37% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0955626873388 0.0774707102158 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158406501201 0.312017818177 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0799334008405 0.0698173142475 114% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.