The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis.
"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
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.
In this argument, the author recommends to take similar action in the opposite side of the city and predicts such approach could revitalize the city. Furthermore, he/she cites freeway's construction case, which lead to the decreasing crime rates and tax revenue raise-up. In addition, the current status of target district under development seems still vacuous and suitable for similar construction like the previous experience. Quite convincing though such recommendation appears at first glance, a closer scrutiny reveals that the conclusion lacks crucial supports. Therefore, we need to consider more evidence to help evaluate the author's conclusion.
To start off, we need more evidence to verify if tax revenue increase and crime rate decline are actually out of construction nearby the freeway. While it is shown that crime rates decline and tax increase happened as substandard housing construction near the freeway, no evidence serves to rule out the probability that crime rates decline is caused by more temporary employees used by factories nearby and tax revenue increase actually stemmed from other financial contribution rather than factory's input. Thus, additional evidence gains great significance to determine whether employee in those factories keep stable or fluctuate violently during such period and how about the proportion of tax revenue contribution. If new evidence shows that employment status changed dynamically in these years and those factories' tax contribution just occupied mere part of total city's tax revenue, it is reasonably safe to claim that crime status and the tax revenues might not be brought about by such construction and the author's conclusion will be weakened. On the contrary, if new information discloses an opposite situation, his/her conclusion will be strengthened.
Furthermore, we need more evidence to ascertain whether we can apply the experience of previous construction to the opposite side of the city. First of all, while crime improvement and tax revenue input is astonishing, detailed comparison between two districts could lend more support to the evaluation of the author's statement about lending previous experience to new district. If new evidence shows that two districts have totally different industrial situation, to blindly use the previous experience for new district is in great doubt and his/her conclusion will be rendered much less advisable. Second, we do not the reason why some houses and apartments in nearby neighborhoods are unoccupied and whether they are already reserved for other purposes. If it turns out that they are pre-occupied by other plans, we are unconvinced of whether we can apply for our construction as expected.
Last but not least, despite the presence of all the previous evidence, a more accurate evaluation of the author's conclusion requires more information. Specific evidence is needed to decide whether such construction strategy on the opposite part could also invoke an accordingly improvement for crime and furthermore for tax input; that is to say, even if all of author's ideas for application of the existing construction experience is right, a similar construction using substandard housing condition could take effect for the opposite side of the city and give out benefit for crime and revenue. As mentioned above, the opposite sides is experiencing the decline of residential area. In the passage, we can not found any valid evidence about the root cause of such phenomenon. If such causes of decline could be remedied by the subsequent construction, his/her conclusion will be lent great support to. On the contrary, we are reluctant to believe that such approach will work as expected.
In summary, the evidence cited by the author in the argument could not provide sufficiently conclusive information to make his/her recommendation compelling. As a result, we need more evidence to better evaluate such suggestion.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-09-29 | orlando23 | 72 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | raolitesh@gmail.com | 55 | view |
| 2019-08-31 | cata | 35 | view |
| 2019-08-07 | wogns030609 | 82 | view |
| 2019-07-13 | msteck02 | 55 | view |
- The following appeared in a health magazine The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they d 68
- The following appeared in a letter from a firm providing investment advice to a client."Homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating. Last year that region experienc 57
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing During the past year Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on the job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries where the work shifts are one hour shorter than ours Experts b 67
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants."Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had litt 52
- People s behavior is largely determined by forces not of their own making Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting 87
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 614 350
No. of Characters: 3270 1500
No. of Different Words: 276 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.978 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.326 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 240 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 209 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 164 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 95 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.696 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.508 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.87 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.2 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 30, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends taking'.
Suggestion: recommends taking
In this argument, the author recommends to take similar action in the opposite side of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 634, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ider more evidence to help evaluate the authors conclusion. To start off, we need ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 889, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed mere part of total citys tax revenue, it is reasonably safe to claim that crim...
^^
Line 5, column 1017, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ught about by such construction and the authors conclusion will be weakened. On the con...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 219, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nt and tax revenue input is astonishing, detailed comparison between two district...
^^
Line 9, column 312, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...d more support to the evaluation of the authors statement about lending previous experi...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 106, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ence, a more accurate evaluation of the authors conclusion requires more information. S...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 264, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('accordingly') instead an adjective, or a noun ('improvement') instead of another adjective.
... on the opposite part could also invoke an accordingly improvement for crime and furthermore for tax input...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 31, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ted. In summary, the evidence cited by the author in the argument could not ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, actually, also, but, first, furthermore, if, second, so, still, then, therefore, thus, while, as for, in addition, in summary, as a result, first of all, on the contrary, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 54.0 16.3942115768 329% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3343.0 2260.96107784 148% => OK
No of words: 609.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.48932676519 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96768813016 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9944454588 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464696223317 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 1050.3 705.55239521 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 92.6474913635 57.8364921388 160% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.347826087 119.503703932 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4782608696 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.60869565217 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0737883836811 0.218282227539 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0216034221193 0.0743258471296 29% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0288832992157 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0468757070009 0.128457276422 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.021529610166 0.0628817314937 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.1 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 161.0 98.500998004 163% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.