The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
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 statement claims that in order to stop the erosion, we need more money for replenishing the sand and we can get the money by charging tourists for using the beaches. In order to prove this statement, we need to examine some evidence, namely how many people use the beaches, how much money should be charged for people using the beaches, as well as the possibility of people not using the beaches because of the charge given to them, and the key factors in determining whether the development of any tourist industry will survive in the long-term. With this information in place, we would find whether this argument convincing and cogent.
To begin with, according to the letter given to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria, the Tria Island, in fact, faces a serious threat because of the erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island. In order to stop the erosion, the statement points out that they will need such amount of money to replenish the sand as ever implemented by the people in Batia Island. Despite the fact that Batia Island was successfully in stopping the erosion and reducing the buildings’ risk of additional damage from severe storms, we need to know whether Batia Island also did other activities in order to stop the erosion such as the possibility of using some plants over the water surface or any advanced technology. By knowing this information, we would know whether replenishing the sand will be sufficient to stop the erosion.
Turning the second point pertaining to the money, we should study how many people visiting the beaches daily. Then, we should calculate how much money we should charge for them and ask them whether they want to visit the beaches if there is entrance fee they should pay before entering the beaches area. If we find that they still want to visit the beaches with the entrance fee we charge for them, then the conclusion to replenish sand in order to protect the buildings from the erosion by utilizing the money from the visitors would be strengthened.
Last but not least, although we have enough money in order to replenish the sand and avoid erosion, it does not necessarily mean the tourist industry will improve over the long term. In order to ensure that the tourist industry in that island is attractive, we need to know what key indicators for determining the successful of such a tourist industry. Take, for example, to ensure the success of a tourist industry, we should provide them with convenient facilities and good services such as restaurant with a wide range of food choice, clean restroom, good accommodation, and available hotel service for 24 hours and so on and so forth. In such a case, we would find out whether the tourist industry in Tria Island would thrive and sustain in the future.
To put it in a nutshell, the statement written in the letter provides an interesting hypothesis regarding the necessity we should do to protect Tria Island from erosion and the prediction of sustaining tourist industry in Tria Island if the authorities could get some money from tourists to replenish the sand. However, in order for this statement to have weight, we need to evaluate some evidence including data about how many people visiting the beaches every day, how much money we should charge for the tourists, as well as the likeliness they still want to come if they are charged in that amount of entrance fee calculated, and, of course, the factors determining the sustainability of tourist industry such as good accommodation and service. With this evidence in place, we can necessarily find out whether the claim written in the letter bereft of critical foundations that we can believe.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-18 | nikkk | 55 | view |
| 2019-08-17 | omarsamiiir | 50 | view |
| 2019-08-05 | yyusong | 89 | view |
| 2019-02-10 | hemanth | 59 | view |
| 2018-07-16 | arpitmotwani | 49 | view |
- Some people say that the internet provides people with a lot of valuable information. Others think access to so much information can create problems. Which view do you agree with? 86
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.W 50
- There will be fewer cars in use in twenty years. 73
- Milk and dairy products are rich in vitamin D and calcium—substances essential for building and maintaining bones. Many people therefore say that a diet rich in dairy products can help prevent osteoporosis, a disease that is linked to both environmental 66
- A person should not take an important decision alone. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 290, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'beaches'' or 'beach's'?
Suggestion: beaches'; beach's
...fee they should pay before entering the beaches area. If we find that they still want t...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'well', 'for example', 'in fact', 'of course', 'such as', 'as well as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.253256150507 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.147612156295 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0578871201158 0.0836205057962 69% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0303907380608 0.0520304965353 58% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0477568740955 0.0272364105082 175% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.147612156295 0.125424944231 118% => OK
Participles: 0.0477568740955 0.0416121511921 115% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.60833709609 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0390738060781 0.026700313972 146% => OK
Particles: 0.00434153400868 0.001811407834 240% => OK
Determiners: 0.125904486252 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0303907380608 0.0255425247493 119% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0101302460203 0.0127820249294 79% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3700.0 2731.13054187 135% => OK
No of words: 635.0 446.07635468 142% => OK
Chars per words: 5.82677165354 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01988110783 4.57801047555 110% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.333858267717 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.251968503937 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.16062992126 0.208842608468 77% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.100787401575 0.135150697306 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60833709609 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 207.018472906 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.388976377953 0.469332199767 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 47.2623361587 52.1807786196 91% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 37.3529411765 23.2022227129 161% => OK
Sentence length SD: 99.0805481278 57.7814097925 171% => OK
Chars per sentence: 217.647058824 141.986410481 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 37.3529411765 23.2022227129 161% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.941176470588 0.724660767414 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 62.5497915702 51.9672348444 120% => OK
Elegance: 1.98717948718 1.8405768891 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.713572636955 0.441005458295 162% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.21308051271 0.135418324435 157% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.105963771605 0.0829849096947 128% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.696427066277 0.58762219726 119% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.152919768779 0.147661913831 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.370250141154 0.193483328276 191% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.160789537627 0.0970749176394 166% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.540551968781 0.42659136922 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0997450618932 0.0774707102158 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.543961965076 0.312017818177 174% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106345941022 0.0698173142475 152% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.