In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown, and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches and thus increased supply possible: for example, last year’s tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year’s. To capitalize on these trends, we should, therefore, invest in the new tartfish processing plant on Tartfish Island, where increasing revenues from tourism indicate a strong local economy.
The argument states that the improvement in fishing technology has made larger catches due to which there is increase in tartfish catching. Hence the government should invest in tartfish catching at the Tartfish Island, where these species are mostly found, for good local economy. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention various factors on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion here lies on assumption without proper evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument mentions there is increase in Tartfish catches by 9% due to improvement in technology. It fails to take into account the approximate population of these species nearby the island and obviously, the economic viability of such practise depends on the how frequently such species can be found. If there is increase in number of catches, there might be a probability that these species decline in number and in future may extinct. Also, the efficiency of the new technology can be studied further. The argument does not even mention whether the local population will be able to bear the expenses of the technology in the long run, in terms of maintenance and other factors.
Secondly as argument mentions that there is an increasing revenue from tourism. However, such statement needs a deeper introspection. The causes of increase in tourism, the knowledge of things that attract tourists in the area, the variety of dishes the tourist prefer should be taken into consideration. One should know whether the tourism in the area is seasonal or not. Only when such factors regarding the tourism are taken into account, the viability of the proposal can be better understood.
Finally, the argument suggest to invest in fishing for generating strong local economy. The current economic factors, the demand for the Tartfish, how will the new practise affect further tourism can be taken into account for further strengthening the argument and moving on to the final decision. Without considering these factors, the argument has no leg to stand.
In summary, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. It could be further strengthened if the author clearly mention all the factors. In order to mention the full authenticity of the argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors and situations.
- In recent years the worldwide demand for fish has grown and improvements in fishing technology have made larger catches and thus increased supply possible for example last year s tuna catch was 9 percent greater than the previous year s To capitalize on t 58
- Replacing the Mathescam Bridge which links Ottenville with Tottenville will prove far less beneficial than would repairing the existing structure The project will unjustly hurt drivers because the Ottenville mayor recommended shortly just before 12 millio 68
- "The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject matter and contents are appropriate. This electronic game rating system is no 75
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 380 350
No. of Characters: 1930 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.415 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.079 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.704 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.223 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.522 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 141, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...there is increase in tartfish catching. Hence the government should invest in tartfis...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 517, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ak, unconvincing and has several flaws. Firstly, the argument mentions there is ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 268, Rule ID: THE_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'how'?
Suggestion: how
...c viability of such practise depends on the how frequently such species can be found. I...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 23, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggest investing'.
Suggestion: suggest investing
...understood. Finally, the argument suggest to invest in fishing for generating strong local ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 280, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he contributing factors and situations.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1999.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26052631579 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79584178772 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492105263158 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1159314276 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1904761905 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0952380952 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2380952381 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.1012168553 0.218282227539 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0341767205043 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557547023723 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0609470449318 0.128457276422 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0444924778039 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.