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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The letter which appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper states 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. On the premise that, due to the interference of non-residents they were unable to make a decision in their recent meetings, only residents would understand how the money paid as tax for Oak city could be used, and residents are more knowledgeable about their city than non-residents. However, the author of the letter came to this conclusion based on three unreliable assumptions, if not substantiated, which dramatically weakens the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, only residents would understand how the money paid as tax for Oak city could be used and non-residents who do not pay any tax should not be members of the committee. When it comes to how to use the money to develop a city an outside perspective can help a lot as their perspective would be purely based on what they can see, so when it comes to using the money for development the non-residents can help the city more by suggesting ideas that the other city in which they are living has implemented or is planning to implement. If the above case is true then the author's argument might not hold water.
Second of all, only residents know how the politics and business of the city work, on what basis is this conclusion being made? When it comes to knowing business non-residents could be the most efficient in doing the business, as they the market outside of Oak they can suggest the plans to increase the business of the Oak city and improve its funding.
Lastly, due to the interference of non-residents, they were unable to make a decision in their recent meetings are the non-residents the only members of the committee who are making the foolish objection in a committee that decides the matters of city suggestions made cannot be categorized, as any suggestion made by non-residents might have been not foolish but tested and have proven to be useless in their resident. If the above case is true then the author needs further evidence for persuasion of the removal of non-residents.
In conclusion, the author’s suggestion of removal of non-residents of Oak city in the letter published the local newspaper as they do not know the politics, business and since they do not pay the city tax might hold water if the author can provide further evidence on the unreliable assumptions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sagar1234567890 | 74 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | TiOluwani97 | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-28 | nipuntestbig | 78 | view |
| 2022-07-05 | Vincent Samuel | 60 | view |
| 2022-07-05 | Naveena0 | 58 | view |
- Which of the following activities do you think will be the most beneficial to the environment 1 Commute by biking or walking 2 Recycling 3 Eating a vegan diet 70
- The primary goal of technological advancement should be to increase people s efficiency so that they have more leisure time Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for t 50
- Describe a fear you had to overcome How did you overcome it 70
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum written by the vice president of Health Naturally a small but expanding chain of stores selling health food and other health related products Our previous experience has been that our stores are most profitable in ar 78
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 543, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...mplemented or is planning to implement. If the above case is true then the authors...
^^
Line 3, column 578, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ent. If the above case is true then the authors argument might not hold water. Second ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2066.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83840749415 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94845636003 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.405152224824 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 653.4 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 102.00607663 57.8364921388 176% => OK
Chars per sentence: 187.818181818 119.503703932 157% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.8181818182 23.324526521 166% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 5.70786347227 124% => 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 : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.283328558377 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130728746573 0.0743258471296 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0981751254715 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190320912368 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.072389946475 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.8 14.3799401198 145% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.37 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.9 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 543, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...mplemented or is planning to implement. If the above case is true then the authors...
^^
Line 3, column 578, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ent. If the above case is true then the authors argument might not hold water. Second ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2066.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83840749415 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94845636003 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.405152224824 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 653.4 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 38.0 22.8473053892 166% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 102.00607663 57.8364921388 176% => OK
Chars per sentence: 187.818181818 119.503703932 157% => OK
Words per sentence: 38.8181818182 23.324526521 166% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 5.70786347227 124% => 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 : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.283328558377 0.218282227539 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130728746573 0.0743258471296 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0981751254715 0.0701772020484 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.190320912368 0.128457276422 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.072389946475 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 20.8 14.3799401198 145% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.37 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.9 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.26 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.5 12.3882235529 157% => OK
gunning_fog: 17.2 11.1389221557 154% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.