In the last year’s mayoral election in Town T, candidate Miller led candidate Keating by a substantial margin in the polls leading up to the election. At the last minute, candidate Keating launched a widely viewed series of television advertisements that focused on preserving the natural environment of Town T, a topic neglected by candidate Miller. Subsequently, candidate Keating won the election by a narrow margin.
This year, if candidate Miller hopes to win the upcoming mayoral election, he must increase his coverage of the topic of preserving the natural environment of Town T.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the incerpt, it is stated that candidate Miller needs to focus more on the topic of preserving the natural environment in order to increase the probability of him winning. This possibility is considered due to the fact that candidate Keating closed the gap substantially by focusing on this specific topic. However, before this assumption can be given any credence, two assumptions must be rectified.
The assumption that the topic of preserving the natural environment will have the same effect as it did in the previous year is naive. As the topic has already been covered, it loses it peculiarity which was the primary reason it had a substantial effect.
The coverage of the topic of preserving the natural environment of Town T may have worked for candidate Keating as it had been blatantly ignored by candidate Miller. The likelihood of this strategy working for candidate Miller only increases if it is certain that the same topic would not be covered by any other candidate. This does not inherently mean that following the same path will lead to success as it only worked for candidate Keating due to the fact that this topic was novel.
As the topic had such an impact on the general consensus, it might be plausible that the citizens of Town T expect this topic to be covered and this in turn causes the topic to lose its essence.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-08-03 | Thelmacakes | 68 | view |
| 2022-02-19 | SP30 | 77 | view |
| 2020-04-26 | shubhamaggarwal | 83 | view |
| 2019-12-02 | farhadmoqimi | 27 | view |
| 2019-10-12 | kunalnate | 73 | view |
- Schools should do more to prepare students for the non-academic aspects of adulthood. 50
- In the last year’s mayoral election in Town T, candidate Miller led candidate Keating by a substantial margin in the polls leading up to the election. At the last minute, candidate Keating launched a widely viewed series of television advertisements tha 33
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 41, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'consensus'.
Suggestion: consensus
... As the topic had such an impact on the general consensus, it might be plausible that the citizen...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1122.0 2260.96107784 50% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 233.0 441.139720559 53% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81545064378 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.90696013833 4.56307096286 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70632764538 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 116.0 204.123752495 57% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497854077253 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 360.9 705.55239521 51% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 19.7664670659 46% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 28.9806235821 57.8364921388 50% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 124.666666667 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8888888889 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.22222222222 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.151202688709 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0790727875025 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0685439851107 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0894296662761 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722359513097 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 53.0 98.500998004 54% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.