Preston County
At first glance, the author's argument appeals to be convincing, but further reflection reveals that it is rife with holes and assumptions about outsiders or migrants being responsible for incidences of vandalism and destruction of public property.
To begin with, author states that reports of damage and destruction were steadily increased. So author uses the word "reports". What is the evidence that these reports were true and in the best interest of Preston County. It is possible that people reporting these incidences had some other motives and they were not true. There should be a substantial evidences for the incident occured in the country.
In addition to it, What does steadily increased means? Is there any specific scale of measuring these incidences. Author should give some proofs about exact number of cases reported every week or month so that it is cogent a to think about the magnitude and occurennces of damage and destruction taking place in Preston.
Furthermore, People travelling to Preston county over the past few years and increased incidences of vandalism doesn'go hand in hand. It is nonsensical to think that out-of-state travellers had done this without providing any proofs. Citizens "believe" that outsiders were the reason for destructuion.Is it plausible to state something so confidently just beacsue someo people had to say about this? Are they reliable source of getting information? Is there any chance of Preston County people had deliberately tried to calumny outsiders. So just because people said or believed about this incidences, we can't aver about the outsiders role in destructing the property.
Finally, it is stated that county government should take firm steps to lessen the number of out-of-state migrants to preclude further destruction. Author assumed that just by preventing people to travel to Preston legally would solve this problems. What if just out of umbrage, people migrated illegaly and tried to sabotage Preston, as without any corrobaration government tried to alleged them for destructing public property of Preston.
To sum up, this argument is weak, full of assumptions about out-of-state migrants and their deeds which caused vandalism and destruction. There are no proof and evidences about these incidences taking place and who exactly was behind all of this.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-21 | CHAITRALI PHATAK | 65 | view |
| 2023-08-21 | Kshitij Kasabekar | 70 | view |
| 2023-08-14 | yuktapradeep | 50 | view |
| 2021-08-05 | dl25 | 59 | view |
- Clay pots of a particular specific design have earlier been found in the surrounding area of the prehistoric village of Karia and so were supposed to have been made exclusively by the people from Karia However of late archeologists discovered a Karian cla 61
- Preston County 59
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 62
- Environmental protection policies should not be applicable to corporations which generate significant financial and economical growth even if such growth may have a negative impact on the environment 50
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has been admitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 13 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 13 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 369 350
No. of Characters: 1928 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.383 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.225 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.75 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.393 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.068 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 22, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
At first glance, the authors argument appeals to be convincing, but ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 311, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Is
...siders were the reason for destructuion.Is it plausible to state something so conf...
^^
Line 7, column 595, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...t because people said or believed about this incidences, we cant aver about the outs...
^^^^
Line 7, column 615, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...d or believed about this incidences, we cant aver about the outsiders role in destru...
^^^^
Line 7, column 635, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'outsiders'' or 'outsider's'?
Suggestion: outsiders'; outsider's
...this incidences, we cant aver about the outsiders role in destructing the property. Fi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 235, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...o travel to Preston legally would solve this problems. What if just out of umbrage, ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, so, in addition, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2001.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 367.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.45231607629 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01852511766 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534059945504 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 612.9 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.367031021 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.05 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.35 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.95 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.184529035446 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.059529678371 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954207704951 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0907005512246 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0938857738049 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.33 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.