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 author in the argument avers that TSA must abandon the policy or measures of safety measures i.e. full-body searches in the US. airports as a part of its counter-terrorism efforts acknowledging the fact that safety measures are not a reasonable trade for the invasion of privacy that citizens must now suffer. The author concludes so, based on the evidence in Fall 2010, as some people complain and made refusal to the use of full-body scanners as they found to be excessively revealing and invading their privacy. Thus, the argument here at first glance seems to be much logical and convincing. But under close scrutiny, it is found to be based on several unwarranted fallacies. However, before the argument can be properly evaluated, several pieces of evidence must be collected and properly analyzed.
To begin with, the author talks about the policy of the Fall 2010 and assumes that the same response will be sure to come from the people and so concludes in abandoning the measure of full-body searches in US airports. How can the author be so sure that the same case would be happen today?. The case today might be different. For instance, the people in 2010 may not be aware of the policy and measures. They might be holding their own view and were completely unware of the other effects. But what if people today are much more aware of safety measures. The people today might be much more aware and they may be impressed by the policy without any complaints and refusal. If the scenario has some merit, then the original argument doesnt hold water. So, the evidence provided should be properly evaluated.
Secondly. It might be the case that, In the 2010 there are less terrorism problem but today the problem may be rising. Several insecurity problems like hijacking, terrorism may be rising spontaneously today. Moreover, there is much need of security measures today compared to 2010. Thus if the case holds true, then the original argument may be seriously weakened.
Finally, The author assumes made the complaint or refuse to accept the full-body scanners, as they judged it to be excessively revealing and invading their privacy. Are those 'some people' are significant responses? Do they represent the response of the whole population?
What if some people may be very few numbers? For instance, only very few may have responded to be excessively revealing. Those people responding may be the people themselves engaging in the crime or other illegal activity. They may even be terrorists themselves. Maybe many other people wanted the measure to be implemented. If this scenario is true, then the argument presented is significantly threatened. The author here fails to be provided a clear and cogent argument. The use of this baffling word has made the argument fallacious. The author needs to properly evaluate the evidence before concluding.
Thus, due to the overstated flaws, the argument as it stands seems to be ill-founded. However, had the author been careful regarding the above points then the argument would be infallible. But as if now the authenticity of the argument falls as being based on several unwarranted assumptions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-09 | sapna.29 | 73 | view |
| 2014-08-17 | amir_20051 | 60 | view |
- Reform is seldom brought about by people who are concerned with their own reputation and social standing Those who are really in earnest about reforming a government an educational system or any other institution must be willing to be viewed with disdain 66
- 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 peo 73
- Several charitable organizations in Pleasantville provide opportunities for teenagers to engage in community service These organizations have a great need for volunteers but in recent years the number of teenage volunteers has significantly declined The P 55
- The charts below show the comparison of some kinds of energy production of France in 2 years 10
- The charts below show the comparison of some kinds of energy production of France in 2 years
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 34 15
No. of Words: 525 350
No. of Characters: 2570 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.787 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.895 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.629 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.441 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.811 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.735 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.263 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.424 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 611, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
... much logical and convincing. But under close scrutiny, it is found to be based on several unw...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 733, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... some merit, then the original argument doesnt hold water. So, the evidence provided s...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 74, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'problems'?
Suggestion: problems
...t, In the 2010 there are less terrorism problem but today the problem may be rising. Se...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 282, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...curity measures today compared to 2010. Thus if the case holds true, then the origin...
^^^^
Line 5, column 69, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun may seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little may'.
Suggestion: little may
...ry few numbers? For instance, only very few may have responded to be excessively reveal...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 538, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... word has made the argument fallacious. The author needs to properly evaluate the e...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for instance, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2637.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02285714286 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7373927049 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 847.8 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 34.0 19.7664670659 172% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.4579699907 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 77.5588235294 119.503703932 65% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4411764706 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.55882352941 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.88822355289 247% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117673817021 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0326818735961 0.0743258471296 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511614595561 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0740614259222 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0607815666978 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.9 14.3799401198 69% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.54 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.