At first glance, the argument made to support the recommendation looks cogent and logical but on thorough scrutiny, one can clearly notice it to be rife of assumptions. Some questions that are crucial to the evaluation of the recommendation are unanswered by the author in the argument.
Firstly, the author assumes, only the swing states that have considerably less population are more crucial to the outcomes of the elections. What is the support of this assumption? It is possible that the big states where, although vote of a single individual has less value but the state is not 'safe' for the parties, as stated by the author. Larger states indicate more diversity and it is never easy for a single party to get easy majority in such circumstances. If this is true, then the recommendation loses its meaning as it is based on the premise that large states are more tractable for the parties. On the contrary, if the larger states are actually easier for the parties to win over, then the recommendation stands stronger. Some statistical data elucidating this doubt would be helpful for the evaluation.
Moreover, author asserts that more priority to the votes of smaller states is undemocratic. What is the evidence that author refers for this assertion? If all the states are given equal priority, it is most likely that larger states would now become 'swing' states. Then, what difference would the recommendation make? More priority to the voters of smaller states may ensure that the interests and opinions of minority are not ignored. If this is true, it exposes the fallacy in the author's argument and significantly weakens the author's recommendation. However, if this is proven false by the evidence, the argument is considerably strengthened.
Additionally, what is undemocratic and unfair about the candidate who does not win the majority but wins considerable votes from all states with more uniformity? Author has not presented any information to answer the above question. If the candidate who may not have got the majority on a whole but has accrued votes more uniformly from the states, can be considered a more suitable candidate then the validity of recommendation is threatened. On the contrary, if statistics prove that it is the other way around, then the sanctity of the recommendation persists.
In the conclusion, the answers to all above questions is mandatory for the fair evaluation of the author's recommendation. If the answers align with the the recommendation, as discussed, then the argument becomes infallible, otherwise it remains ill-founded and half-cooked.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 483, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... is true, it exposes the fallacy in the authors argument and significantly weakens the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 530, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... argument and significantly weakens the authors recommendation. However, if this is pro...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 394, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...be considered a more suitable candidate then the validity of recommendation is threa...
^^^^
Line 9, column 99, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...andatory for the fair evaluation of the authors recommendation. If the answers align wi...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 149, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...commendation. If the answers align with the the recommendation, as discussed, then the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 149, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...commendation. If the answers align with the the recommendation, as discussed, then the ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.209850107066 0.25644967241 82% => OK
Verbs: 0.154175588865 0.15541462614 99% => OK
Adjectives: 0.107066381156 0.0836205057962 128% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0620985010707 0.0520304965353 119% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0192719486081 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.119914346895 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0278372591006 0.0416121511921 67% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.09918998279 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0214132762313 0.026700313972 80% => OK
Particles: 0.00214132762313 0.001811407834 118% => OK
Determiners: 0.145610278373 0.113004496875 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0149892933619 0.0255425247493 59% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0214132762313 0.0127820249294 168% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2600.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 422.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.16113744076 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.364928909953 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.284360189573 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.215639810427 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.151658767773 0.135150697306 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09918998279 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457345971564 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 49.6714028222 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 19.1818181818 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4973471226 57.7814097925 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.181818182 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1818181818 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.545454545455 0.724660767414 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 47.6178371392 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.51818181818 1.8405768891 82% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.394153292515 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.135480218793 0.135418324435 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0868708895328 0.0829849096947 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.603260517542 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.161374421364 0.147661913831 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.191586659804 0.193483328276 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0721663031895 0.0970749176394 74% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.567567912181 0.42659136922 133% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0734092177802 0.0774707102158 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.312060812235 0.312017818177 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.015056942971 0.0698173142475 22% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.