Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. We should install high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg, then, because doing so is a more effective way to combat crime. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city.
The writer of argument concludes that the installation of high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg will decline the vandalism and revitalize the neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, this conclusion cannot be accepted as it is in that is rests on the list of assumptions all of which can be challenged in the one way or another.
The first problem with the argument is that the writer assumes that the declination of crimes in Belleville is related to the installation of the lighting system in the city. However, as there are no any cogent data about this situation to prepare the links among these two factors, this assumption is opened to the doubts. Perhaps, besides the high-intensity lighting, the police stations in Belleville enhance their equipment and are more aware of the vandalism in the city and possess the well-organized system to control the situations. Or maybe, there is a new policy in Belleville which prepares the bulks of occupation and earning resources instead of the crimes; consequently, the population is devoted from the vandal tasks and their incomes to acquire more money. Either scenario provides a possible explanation for the decrement of vandalism beyond the lighting system.
Another problem with the argument is that the writer considers that Amburg is identical to Belleville in all aspects; thus, the lightning will be effective in Amburg too. Even in the case which the high-intensity lighting in Amburg is effective, since there is no any lucid evidence about these two cities and their similarities, the surmise of equal result in Belleville is suspicion. Maybe the rate of crimes the Amburg is higher than the Belleville and they are deep-rooted with a knotty and substance consequence, which the lighting cannot be accountable for its control. Or perhaps, the majority of vandalism in Amburg is related to the internet-crimes such as the fake internet bank account for purchases. In this case, the high-intensity lighting cannot be considered as plausible solution for them. Without accounting these and other possible dissimilarities, the relation of the Belleville city's result to the Amburg will be facile and inaccurate.
The third problem with the argument is that the writer surmises that as the quantities of vandalism decrease, the abandon neighborhoods in the city will relief. However, there is no any explicit information about this abandon. Maybe, this declining neighborhood in the city is in the sake of the scanty facilities, which are required by the citizens. In this case, the decrement of crime cannot be responsible of this revitalization till the city provides the demanded requirements. Or perhaps, the abandon is related to old-style of houses in city; which do not suite with the today's lifestyle and standards. As a result, as the main reason of the decreasing dweller is vague, this relationship among the lighting and the revitalization is superficial.
All in all, to persuade me that this conclusion is valid, the writer should provide the list of reasons and evidences that the decrements of vandalism in Belleville is related to the lighting, these two city are same, and the desert of neighborhood in the city is in the sake of the crimes. Otherwise, all mentioned assumptions are inaccurate and vague.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-22 | ayush12 | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | gaurang.rane | 33 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | gaurang.rane | 33 | view |
| 2019-06-26 | AMARDEEP KOUR GEDHU | 55 | view |
| 2018-03-08 | amirbahman | 69 | view |
- tpo8 73
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?Successful people try new things and take risks rather than only doing what they already know how to do well. 70
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas, trends, and concepts that help explain those facts. 50
- do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Because people are busy doing so many different things, they do very things well. use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Students who keep rooms their neat and organized are more successful than those who do not. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...stem in the city. However, as there are no any cogent data about this situation to...
^^
Line 5, column 262, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... in Amburg is effective, since there is no any lucid evidence about these two citi...
^^
Line 7, column 180, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...the city will relief. However, there is no any explicit information about this aba...
^^
Line 7, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'todays'' or 'today's'?
Suggestion: todays'; today's
...es in city; which do not suite with the todays lifestyle and standards. As a result, a...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'third', 'thus', 'well', 'such as', 'as a matter of fact', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.269624573379 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.119453924915 0.15541462614 77% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0580204778157 0.0836205057962 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0307167235495 0.0520304965353 59% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0136518771331 0.0272364105082 50% => OK
Prepositions: 0.150170648464 0.125424944231 120% => OK
Participles: 0.0273037542662 0.0416121511921 66% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.08492971221 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.018771331058 0.026700313972 70% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.17747440273 0.113004496875 157% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0170648464164 0.0255425247493 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0102389078498 0.0127820249294 80% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3287.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 531.0 446.07635468 119% => OK
Chars per words: 6.19020715631 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386064030132 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299435028249 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.235404896422 0.208842608468 113% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.161958568738 0.135150697306 120% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08492971221 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 207.018472906 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419962335217 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.4512868026 52.1807786196 93% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 25.2857142857 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9339210715 57.7814097925 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 156.523809524 141.986410481 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2857142857 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.619047619048 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 55.2292171106 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 2.72916666667 1.8405768891 148% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.456413499801 0.441005458295 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.146299330513 0.135418324435 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0676956232373 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.651374263774 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.180491601782 0.147661913831 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.242891353723 0.193483328276 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10370686325 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.668207609131 0.42659136922 157% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0506687662787 0.0774707102158 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.380427293808 0.312017818177 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0156282125639 0.0698173142475 22% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => 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.