A large sundial, dated at three thousand years old, used to be a major tourist attraction. However, the number of people buying tickets to see it has dropped 20% over the last year. Clearly, the government will provide financial and marketing assistance to the trust responsible for this historical treasure. The money will be put to good use, as the trust is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization. People thinking of starting a new business would do well to pick a location close to the sundial, which will certainly attract more tourists this time next year.
The argument is based on the fact that there has been a decrease in the number of tickets bought from the last year, by 20%. In response to that, they assume that the government would provide the trust fund responsible for this historical treasure would be provided financial and marketing aid. It suggests, people who are going to start a business would be benefited from this if they choose a place closer to the sundial, which would elude more tourists to visit this place. I find many unstated facts and optimistic assumptions took up by the argument, which makes me skeptical of the stand taken by the argument.
Firstly, there had been a decrease of the number of tickets bought to see it. This is a circumstantial claim which assumes that people did not visit the sundial, fails to consider that people would visit nearby attractions. They might also be tourists who had already visited said sundial and might not be interested in seeing it again, loosing interest in watching the sundial.
Secondly, the argument assumes that government would help make the trust fund responsible for the maintenance of the sundial, which might not be accurate in this case, as thee government of a particular state or country might not be interested in preserving the historical monuments, rather, use it to acquire grants of better social facilities and other projects. It doe not deem necessary to fund the trust fund, which would be well backed by their own board chairmen and donations from people.
Finally, while the argument's stand of businesses would be better to find a location close by to the attraction, it does not necessarily specify how effective these businesses would do from a statistical viewpoint. In a recent survey, tourists revealed that they would be less likely to buy something from a store closer to a tourist attraction than at a local shop, reason being the fear of spending more money then necessary for the item that they bought. The businesses that would open might also be prone to huge competition around the sundial. They would also need to come up with an effective marketing strategy to make sure their incomes are sustainable.
As the argument has neither been statistically informative nor aesthetically sound, the argument fails to make its point a strong stand against critiques which would deface the argument and its stand. It would be more convincing if it had stated more facts and evidences related to other such tourist places which had undergone the same problems.
- A large sundial dated at three thousand years old used to be a major tourist attraction However the number of people buying tickets to see it has dropped 20 over the last year Clearly the government will provide financial and marketing assistance to the t 85
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil Most homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heati 68
- The following is a recommendation from the business manager of Monarch Books Since its opening in Collegeville twenty years ago Monarch Books has developed a large customer base due to its reader friendly atmosphere and wide selection of books on all subj 30
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 412, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...n being the fear of spending more money then necessary for the item that they bought...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2095.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 422.0 442.535393258 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.9644549763 5.05705443957 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66481495441 2.79657885939 95% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 215.323595506 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504739336493 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 704.065955056 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => 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: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.2812484427 60.3974514979 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.666666667 118.986275619 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.1333333333 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.93333333333 5.21951772744 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.167580882115 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664943865853 0.0831039109588 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503731562069 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0996870135452 0.150359130593 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0497912993587 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 100.480337079 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.