In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham
The writer of this argument recommends that in order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building. To support this recommendation, he claims that the new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham. This recommendation is specious on several grounds.
Firstly, the writer recommends that replacing an old building with new one can save a considerable amount of money. It cannot be accepted because firstly, buying a new large place needs a huge amount of money and this replacement takes a huge amounts of money and time and consequently, sharply decreases their turnover. If it is assumed that it is beneficial, on the basis of this argument, some citizens have proposed this idea. Indeed, there is no evidence about their number, social class, job and so on. Maybe 50 persons proposed this ides whose distance to this building is far and it annoys them. To decide about this replacement, firstly the size of this group of citizen and whole citizens must be clear. In addition, maybe these persons, due to several private things such as far distance to this hall and or achieving more benefits, proposed this idea. To accept this recommendation, the idea of all social classes and groups of its citizen must be considered. Indeed, the sample population must be representative of the target population in all terms. So, on the basis of this argument, this proposition is not valid and realistic.
Secondly, although the writer claims that the heating and cooling of old hall in winter and summer is very costly and the new, larger building would be more energy efficient, it cannot be accepted because there is not any information about the heating and cooling systems and the total squares of these buildings in this argument. Maybe in the new building, the high-tech systems will be used which are very expensive and impose extra charge to establish and annual protection. In addition, hiring professional technicians with high salary for its protection is undeniable that can increase its expense. Furthermore, maybe this new heating and cooling system is not appropriate and cannot meet their expectations. Thus, after time, they must replace it with older one. Clearly, it can impose extra expense. Moreover, if the new building is larger than the old one, without any hesitation, it needs more money for cooling and heating systems for all parts of this building.
Another question about this argument is about renting out some of the space in the new building. On the basis of this argument the old town hall is too small and people who are employed by the town cannot accommodate comfortably. If it is assumed true, renting out some space in the new building can make this problem, again.
In final analysis, it can be stated that this recommendation is based on a number of assumptions which all of them are challengeable and It cannot be accepted provided that all of the above mentioned questions are answered and all weaknesses are removed.
- Claitown University needs both affordable housing for its students and a way to fund the building of such housing. The best solution to this problem is to commission a famous architect known for experimental and futuristic buildings. It is common knowledg 62
- A recent study shows that people living on the continent of North America suffer 9 times more chronic fatigue and 31 times more chronic depression than do people living on the continent of Asia. Interestingly, Asians, on average, eat 20 grams of soy per d 50
- In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommoda 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 426, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...rmore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby gene...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 243, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'amount'?
Suggestion: amount
...money and this replacement takes a huge amounts of money and time and consequently, sha...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 535, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ob and so on. Maybe 50 persons proposed this ides whose distance to this building is...
^^^^
Line 4, column 59, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...bout this argument is about renting out some of the space in the new building. On the basis...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 174, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...and It cannot be accepted provided that all of the above mentioned questions are answered ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['consequently', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'thus', 'in addition', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.213008130081 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.139837398374 0.15541462614 90% => OK
Adjectives: 0.10406504065 0.0836205057962 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0585365853659 0.0520304965353 113% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0357723577236 0.0272364105082 131% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.117073170732 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0439024390244 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.80486740419 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0162601626016 0.026700313972 61% => OK
Particles: 0.00487804878049 0.001811407834 269% => OK
Determiners: 0.121951219512 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0308943089431 0.0255425247493 121% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00650406504065 0.0127820249294 51% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3274.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 548.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97445255474 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.348540145985 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.255474452555 0.287650121315 89% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.18795620438 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.118613138686 0.135150697306 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80486740419 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 207.018472906 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441605839416 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.7460032602 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 21.92 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.597832781 57.7814097925 112% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.96 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.92 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.52 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 47.4674452555 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.59722222222 1.8405768891 87% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.500717233105 0.441005458295 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109316129051 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0826018959469 0.0829849096947 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.513118512752 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.211079386006 0.147661913831 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177728030055 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141493770807 0.0970749176394 146% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.412880409167 0.42659136922 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.114801499496 0.0774707102158 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.339076909613 0.312017818177 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.145788947451 0.0698173142475 209% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => 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.