In Fall 2010, the Transportation Security Administration stepped up its security efforts in U.S. airports by incorporating random full-body searches as part of its counter-terrorism efforts. These full-body searches were a response to the refusal of some people to accept the use of full-body scanners, which were judged by some to be excessively revealing. The Chief of TSA and the Secretary of State both came forward to say that, while they acknowledge every citizen's desire for privacy, this desire must be held in balance with safety measures. However, these safety measures are not a reasonable trade for the invasion of privacy that citizens must now suffer, so the TSA must abandon such measures.
The argument is based on several fallacious assumptions and fails to provide substantive evidences to justify them. Primarily, it assumes that the refusal of people to abide by the newly implemented full-body searches are unreasonable because of the invasion of privacy and summarily disregards any other factor that might be prevalent, thus making the main conclusion invalid.
First of all, the full body searches are random in nature. Even though they were judged to be excessively revealing by some people these people might be a small contingent of the very large safety concerned people in total. Because of the randomness of the system, only a few people everyday will be exposed to the full-body search and others will continue to operate just as normal. Again, if the people complaining are determined to be a very small faction or maybe only those people who actually have to hide something then the arguments conclusion totally falls apart. Some people, for example, might be just complaining as they are mimicking other people but will cede soon enough as they understand the importance of the measure. The argument, therefore, needs to provide substantive evidence regarding the content and the strength of complain through a widespread survey. Even then it would have to further prove that those people consist a very considerable number amount all the passengers to be believable.
Additionally, the argument makes further unwarranted assumptions. It claims that invasion of privacy is not resonable enough to employ the safety measures. But it explicitely states that the search would be done by full-body scanners which are just machines programmed to perform the safety measures. A regular person should have no problem revealing himself in front of a machine. Even if the search were to be done by humans, the system could make it more amenable by using male searchers for males and females for female passengers which then wouldn't be as revealing or embarrassing as the argument claims it to be. If we had information that even though full-body is written, the passengers are only asked to remove their outer body clothing and not their underwear, then the arguments assumption that the privacy is severely invaded falls apart.
Finally, the argument, without any evidence claims that the safety measures aren't reasonable which seems spurious. It fails to provide any proof regarding the fact that the measure wouldn't greatly increase the safety of the passengers. If people are exposed to random searches, he/she will always have to be careful in carrying illicit material or things with them and suicide bombers or terrorists would be much less likely to carry dangerous firearms on their body. The measure, will therefore greatly increase the safety of the passengers while only making a small inconvenience for some small group of people whom the random process chooses. Without providing any evidence that weakens the increased safety factor of the proposed measure, the arguments assumption that it is unreasonable is not credible.
In conclusion, the argument makes several unattended assumptions and untill further evidence is provided, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-03-23 | Alvi Jawad | 49 | view |
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 83
- Some people believe it is imperative for individuals living in developed nations to reduce their energy consumption and lead a more sustainable lifestyle, given the evidence for global climate change. Others believe that such drastic lifestyle changes are 50
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 29
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations, so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: It claims that invasion of privacy is not resonable enough to employ the safety measures.
Error: resonable Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: But it explicitely states that the search would be done by full-body scanners which are just machines programmed to perform the safety measures.
Error: explicitely Suggestion: explicitly
Sentence: In conclusion, the argument makes several unattended assumptions and untill further evidence is provided, these assumptions severely undermine the argument presented.
Error: untill Suggestion: until
----------------------
flaws:
the arguments are not exactly right on the point. for example, this happened 'In Fall 2010,', but now the situation may have changed and become more serious.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 516 350
No. of Characters: 2668 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.766 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.171 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.707 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.644 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.513 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[2]
Message: “Even though” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ull body searches are random in nature. Even though they were judged to be excessively reve...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 284, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...omness of the system, only a few people everyday will be exposed to the full-body search...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 532, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ctually have to hide something then the arguments conclusion totally falls apart. Some pe...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 547, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...emales for female passengers which then wouldnt be as revealing or embarrassing as the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 781, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...thing and not their underwear, then the arguments assumption that the privacy is severely...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 77, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...vidence claims that the safety measures arent reasonable which seems spurious. It fai...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 182, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...oof regarding the fact that the measure wouldnt greatly increase the safety of the pass...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 748, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ety factor of the proposed measure, the arguments assumption that it is unreasonable is n...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, if, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2726.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32421875 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76560017203 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 869.4 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.0796578374 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.80952381 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.380952381 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.95238095238 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126087892767 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0468976957494 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706699900595 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0741039214382 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0450497097695 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.