In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The above statement suggests that the first study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh is flawed. To support the argument, the author cites the second study conducted by the same researchers. However, more information is needed to better support the claim.
To begin with, an evidence that the first and second studies were conducted under same conditions is required. Responses can change depending on different time periods and different methods of study. It is only mentioned that the first and second study are exerted by the same researchers; other factors of both studies are not stated. For more effective evaluation of both studies, more information regarding time, type of respondents, and means of both studies is needed.
Second, the author should provide evidence that data of checked out books can represent the general interest of Waymarch citizens. To substantiate the assertion, the author indicates the data that shows the mystery novel is the most frequently checked out books of the public libraries in Waymarsh. Nevertheless, the author neglects the possibility that people of Waymarsh might actually purchase literary classics to keep them and borrow mystery novels temporarily. If such is the case, it is evident that people of Waymarsh prefer literary classics over mystery novels. Therefore, the author has to more proofs that book check-out results from the public libraries accurately reflect the actual preference of the entire Waymarch citizens.
Moreover, even if the check-out trend of the public libraries of Waymarsh represent the general interest of the citizens, the author needs to show more evidence regarding the data of the representativeness of those public libraries. If there are more private libraries in town that are not considered, and if check-out results from those libraries alter the entire frequency results, then the author's claim will become logically flawed. Thus, it is crucial for the author to give more information that demontrates the trend of the entire libraries to precisely measure reading habits of Waymarsh citizens.
In sum, without providing aforementioned evidences, the author's argument will remain gratuitous. To strengthen the assertion, there needs information about conditions of the first and second studies, if there is no other variables that can reflect Waymarsh citizens' reading habits, and the representativeness of results of the public libraries of Waymarsh.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-10-19 | reeya kiran | 55 | view |
| 2019-01-31 | KshitijSingh | 43 | view |
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree 50
- In order for any work of art-for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song--to have merit, it must be understandable to most people. 79
- The best way to solve environmental problems caused by consumer-generated waste is for towns and cities to impose strict limits on the amount of trash they will accept from each household.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree 78
- People’s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 62
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 383 350
No. of Characters: 2061 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.424 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.381 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.803 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.529 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.882 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.605 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ence of the entire Waymarch citizens. Moreover, even if the check-out trend of...
^^^
Line 9, column 57, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...providing aforementioned evidences, the authors argument will remain gratuitous. To str...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'regarding', 'second', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'as to', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.265402843602 0.25644967241 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.156398104265 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.104265402844 0.0836205057962 125% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0450236966825 0.0520304965353 87% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00947867298578 0.0272364105082 35% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125592417062 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0450236966825 0.0416121511921 108% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.89031937745 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0236966824645 0.026700313972 89% => OK
Particles: 0.00236966824645 0.001811407834 131% => OK
Determiners: 0.120853080569 0.113004496875 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0165876777251 0.0255425247493 65% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0118483412322 0.0127820249294 93% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2498.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 383.0 446.07635468 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.52219321149 6.12365571057 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.451697127937 0.378187486979 119% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.357702349869 0.287650121315 124% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255874673629 0.208842608468 123% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.180156657963 0.135150697306 133% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89031937745 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 207.018472906 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.443864229765 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.4682439249 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 22.5294117647 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1042763262 57.7814097925 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.941176471 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5294117647 23.2022227129 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.764705882353 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 58.2996467517 51.9672348444 112% => OK
Elegance: 2.06741573034 1.8405768891 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.595280879517 0.441005458295 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.174774207159 0.135418324435 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.125575471649 0.0829849096947 151% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.645144056405 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149635639423 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.27803200546 0.193483328276 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.14868182335 0.0970749176394 153% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.488776376911 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.164418476447 0.0774707102158 212% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.435683720201 0.312017818177 140% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106724868988 0.0698173142475 153% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.