The following appeared on the op-ed page of a local newspaper:
“As violent crime rates have slowly inched up in our city, it is time for city officials to take a stand to protect citizens from
harm. The first step is to gate and lock downtown parks after dark. Keys can be passed out to apartment owners and other
local residents to ensure that they have continued access to these public spaces while protecting against people who are
using the park for things other than the recreational activities for which these public spaces were designed. This approach
has been taken in three of the five suburbs that surround this city and polls of both homeowners and police departments in all three report higher property values and lower crime rates. The city needs to act now before we reach a tipping point.”
The author of the claim points out various arguments that are flawed and illogical line of reasoning is employed while reaching the presented suggestion. Hence, additional information needs to analyzed and strong evidence are required to substantiate the claim before taking such a drastic measure.
Firstly, the author mentions that the violent crime rates have increased slowly in the city. However, there is no mention about the rate of the increase or the basis on which the crime is categorized as violent. Also, the cause for this increase in crime has to be analyzed. The increase could be because of a dispute with the government or a campaign for rights. If this cause is evaluated, then it is possible that these crimes could be diminished by means other than the one suggested by the author.
Secondly, the presents the recommendation lock down public parks after dark. However, this line of thought is faulty and is based on the assumption that violent crimes occur only in the dark. Hence, information regarding the crime rate at night and daylight needs to published to strengthen the argument. Also, the claim also assumes that apartment owners other local residents are not likely to take part in violent crimes. This need not be the case necessarily.
Thirdly, the author exemplifies reports from three suburbs. The polls taken from the three suburb regions show a decrease in crime rates. However, the author provides no assurance that these polls can be trusted. Also, the author fails to provide the index by which these crime rates have decreased in the suburb areas. Also, the analogy of the author between suburb regions and city region is not justifiable. To strengthen this analogy, the author needs to provide solid crime rate figures of the suburbs and the city. It is possible that the crime rates in the city far exceeds that of the suburbs and hence could render this comparison undue.
To sum, the claim is not substantiated with sufficient evidence to strengthen the case and thus the conclusion is unconvincing. Hence, the author needs to gather and evaluate additional information and study the situation further before providing a solution to the problem at hand.
- Some people believe that competition drives young athletes to perform at their best while others believe that competition discourages those who are not athletically talented from participating in organized sports 23
- The following appeared in a report to the board of a company that produces men’s sporting apparel:“While national television advertising is increasingly expensive, it would cost roughly the same amount to reach the samenumber of people by buying print 66
- “An increased number of laws or rules, ironically leads to a diminished sense of morality and impoverished relationsamong people.” 62
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the regional manager of the Taste of Italy restaurant chain:“After the first month of service, the new restaurant in the Flatplains Mall, which uses the Chipless brand of wine glasses,has reported a far lower 70
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor's record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition. 50
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'while', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.268656716418 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.164179104478 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0572139303483 0.0836205057962 68% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0572139303483 0.0520304965353 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00497512437811 0.0272364105082 18% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.106965174129 0.125424944231 85% => OK
Participles: 0.047263681592 0.0416121511921 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6018599811 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0323383084577 0.026700313972 121% => OK
Particles: 0.00497512437811 0.001811407834 275% => OK
Determiners: 0.151741293532 0.113004496875 134% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.00995024875622 0.0255425247493 39% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00995024875622 0.0127820249294 78% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2210.0 2731.13054187 81% => OK
No of words: 365.0 446.07635468 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.05479452055 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.353424657534 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.26301369863 0.287650121315 91% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.191780821918 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.112328767123 0.135150697306 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6018599811 2.79052419416 93% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 207.018472906 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487671232877 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 51.3660135712 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 17.380952381 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.1609820564 57.7814097925 54% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.238095238 141.986410481 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.380952381 23.2022227129 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.761904761905 0.724660767414 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 43.682322244 51.9672348444 84% => OK
Elegance: 1.86813186813 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462493481226 0.441005458295 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.13486970948 0.135418324435 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0836108521082 0.0829849096947 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.601990612824 0.58762219726 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.114227104612 0.147661913831 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.206671282122 0.193483328276 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0785377970773 0.0970749176394 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.463559219989 0.42659136922 109% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0824462339071 0.0774707102158 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.334301969533 0.312017818177 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0508979897469 0.0698173142475 73% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.