167. "The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings, we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that activities of non-residents committee of the Oak city should be limited and indigenous citizens should be replaced, instead. In fact, non-residents members are not able to make a sound decision for improvement of the city. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored questions need to be addressed.
The first assumption that lacks some semblance of truth and can be overtly impugned is that in recent meetings they could not come to an agreement for the limited budget owing to the fact that non-residents members make foolish decisions. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since a question that might arise is whether non-residents' decisions are foolishly or citizens of the city are not able to perceive decisions. One point that should be considered is the fact that the author does not mention anything about the content of the meetings. In fact, maybe non-residents give their ideas and make a decision based on limited budget but citizens of the Oak city could not understand the situation. Or maybe citizens of the city have an insatiable desire for the limited budget, who knows?
The author also points out that non-residents members of the committee are not knowledgeable and are not able to handle economic and political situations. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question if citizens of the city are knowledgeable and eligible for the committee. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is the fact that the author does not represent anything about hallmarks of neither non-residents nor citizens of the Oak City. There is a possibility that citizens of the city do not be knowledgeable persons as well and could not be able to make sound decisions for the development of the city.
Putting the two previous assumptions aside, there is still room for doubt. As set forth by the author non-residents members of the committee could not understand the situation of the city because they do not pay the taxes. Nevertheless, the rationale behind the premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if just taxpayers could appreciate and perceive the situation of the city. One point that should not go unnoticed is the fact that the author does not take the living environment of the non-residents members into consideration. In fact, they pay taxes in their living area, so, it is not fair to allege that they do not understand anything about the situation of the city. There is a possibility that they pay taxes as twice as Oak city residents.
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a number of questions, having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work.
----------------------
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 493 350
No. of Characters: 2373 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.712 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.778 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.383 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.56 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ire for the limited budget, who knows? The author also points out that non-resi...
^^^
Line 9, column 218, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, well, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2428.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92494929006 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83804352851 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403651115619 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 756.9 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4471619396 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.4 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.65 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => 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: 0.188706347352 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0708851552857 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0595451046135 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113344325287 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0727927391798 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.