The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
The author of this argument recommends that Committee should only allow residents in the city to be its memberships. To justify the recommendation, the author provides the following fact. Oak City residents pay city taxes, so they must able to be members of committee. In addition, in a recent meeting one who cites foolish objections, this show that they can not fully understand business and politics in the city. Therefore, if all members of committee are residents, the city will be better place for living and working. Scrutiny each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible supports to the recommendation.
First, the author mentions that none-residents members cannot comprehend the conditions, because a member who does not live in city has foolish idea. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible the idea of this non-resident member was logically, while other member could not comprehend it. In addition, the idea may put other members’ interest in the line. Moreover, if their idea was foolish, the author cannot generalize their conclusion to other all non-resident members in committee. Without considering these possible scenarios, the author cannot conclude that non-resident members can not understand business and policies in the city.
Second, the author climes residents can live and in a better condition, if all members in committee live in the city. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily the case. Progress of the city depend many factors such as industrial factories, educated members of committee, and economic conditions.
In sum, the argument is flawed logically and therefore unconvincing it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide information about what a non-resident member cited in the committee. In order to evaluate better the conclusion it would be better to know more about the city’s condition, and its facilities.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sagar1234567890 | 74 | view |
- Some people say that computers have made life easier and more convenient. Other people say that computers have made life more complex and stressful. What is your opinion? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? High schools should allow students to study the courses that students want to study. Use specific reasons and examples to support your opinion. 80
- Every generation of people is different in important ways How is your generation different from your parents generation Use specific reasons and examples to explain your answer 80
- TPO-17:Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Most advertisements make products seem much better than they really are. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 3
- You have received a gift of money. The money is enough to buy either a piece of jewelry you like or tickets to a concert you want to attend. Which would you buy? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 80
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'in addition', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.262247838617 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.118155619597 0.15541462614 76% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0806916426513 0.0836205057962 96% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0576368876081 0.0520304965353 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0345821325648 0.0272364105082 127% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.112391930836 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.014409221902 0.0416121511921 35% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 3.07274053353 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0230547550432 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.112391930836 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0374639769452 0.0255425247493 147% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00864553314121 0.0127820249294 68% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1903.0 2731.13054187 70% => OK
No of words: 296.0 446.07635468 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.42905405405 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.412162162162 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.320945945946 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.260135135135 0.208842608468 125% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.182432432432 0.135150697306 135% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07274053353 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 207.018472906 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510135135135 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 50.8996970403 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 17.4117647059 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.2365529607 57.7814097925 52% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.941176471 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4117647059 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.823529411765 0.724660767414 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.5063593005 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.84931506849 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.548626895227 0.441005458295 124% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.115350203911 0.135418324435 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0688581762364 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.559392898329 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.109766247945 0.147661913831 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.249788550266 0.193483328276 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0779341050636 0.0970749176394 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.419886595004 0.42659136922 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0247126129811 0.0774707102158 32% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.41668393796 0.312017818177 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626170229122 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.