The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
The author of this argument recommends that Committee should only allow residents in the city to be its memberships. To justify the recommendation, the author provides the following fact. Oak City residents pay city taxes, so they must able to be members of committee. In addition, in a recent meeting one who cites foolish objections, this show that they can not fully understand business and politics in the city. Therefore, if all members of committee are residents, the city will be better place for living and working. Scrutiny each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible supports to the recommendation.
First, the author mentions that none-residents members cannot comprehend the conditions, because a member who does not live in city has foolish idea. Nonetheless, it is entirely possible the idea of this non-resident member was logically, while other member could not comprehend it. In addition, the idea may put other members’ interest in the line. Moreover, if their idea was foolish, the author cannot generalize their conclusion to other all non-resident members in committee. Without considering these possible scenarios, the author cannot conclude that non-resident members can not understand business and policies in the city.
In the second place, the author climes residents can live and in a better condition, if all members in committee live in the city. Nevertheless, it is not necessarily the case. Progress of the city depend many factors such as industrial factories, educated members of committee, and economic conditions.
In sum, the argument is flawed logically and therefore unconvincing it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide information about what a non-resident member cited in the committee. In order to evaluate better the conclusion it would be better to know more about the city’s condition, and its facilities.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-05 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 69 | view |
| 2018-10-31 | york13468 | 66 | view |
| 2018-10-20 | Shrinivaschavhan0029 | 77 | view |
| 2018-06-09 | dshah6611 | 77 | view |
| 2017-07-27 | roncy | view |
- Parents are the best teacher. Do you agree or disagree? 73
- TOEFL T P O 20 Integrated Writing Task 78
- Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people live? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 86
- Many important discoveries or creations are accidental: it is usually while seeking the answer to one question that we come across the answer to another. 41
- The following appeared in a letter from a homeowner to a friend.Of the two leading real estate firms in our town—Adams Realty and Fitch Realty—Adams Realty is clearly superior. Adams has 40 real estate agents; in contrast, Fitch has 25, many of whom w 66
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'in addition', 'such as', 'in the second place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.26 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.117142857143 0.15541462614 75% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0828571428571 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0571428571429 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0342857142857 0.0272364105082 126% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.114285714286 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0142857142857 0.0416121511921 34% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 3.0656402119 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0228571428571 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.114285714286 0.113004496875 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0371428571429 0.0255425247493 145% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00857142857143 0.0127820249294 67% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1916.0 2731.13054187 70% => OK
No of words: 299.0 446.07635468 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.40802675585 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.1583189471 4.57801047555 91% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.411371237458 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314381270903 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.257525083612 0.208842608468 123% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.180602006689 0.135150697306 134% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0656402119 2.79052419416 110% => OK
Unique words: 152.0 207.018472906 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508361204013 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 50.8265613965 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 17.5882352941 23.2022227129 76% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.554732784 57.7814097925 53% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.705882353 141.986410481 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5882352941 23.2022227129 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.882352941176 0.724660767414 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.0263623844 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 1.86301369863 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.55275442392 0.441005458295 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.116634844601 0.135418324435 86% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0689780245357 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.56012863704 0.58762219726 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.114001749084 0.147661913831 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.25267294845 0.193483328276 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0800017003666 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.441533828095 0.42659136922 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0184674899588 0.0774707102158 24% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.424493535279 0.312017818177 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0597235823746 0.0698173142475 86% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.