The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting the supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county. Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The argument is of a certain county which goes by Maple County and its plans to change current policy on the basis of a near by county. This argument is not sufficient to provide enough evidence of a well thought and thorough decision. There are few wide assumption which are faulty and are careless and need to be examined in a careful manner in order to make the plan of Maple’s officials a successful one.
First, the argument wrongfuly assumes that Maple and Pine counties have the same type of population with same kind of needs. This is hardly the case for any two counties of any state. If Maple County wants to use the data available from Pine county, then there should be a comparison of the socio-economic state of the two counties which will reveal into what extant what is tright for Pine would be true for Maple. So, the argument will be greatly improve if a question of the kind the compares the two counties would be answered and annalyzed by the planners of Maple county.
Secondly, another point which is failed to be addressed by the council of Maple County is the fact that the land, geophysics, and structure of both counties could differ greatly. It would be wise to ask what kind of lands and grounds Maple county has in comparison to Pine county. Additionaly, The size of available are should be discussed as well. And so does the ratio of Population per area. Such factors can highly diffrentiate the findings and operational conclustions about them. Improved suggestion would incorporate all this practical data into it and that would show the degree of viablity of the offer.
Thirdly, there is also another major factor involved which is the factor of macro-economy. In a time gap of 10 years the real estate marker could be in a extremly different state of being. For instance, consider the real estate market before and after the US housing crisis of 2007-8. Thus, relying on housing events which took place in the last ten or fifteen years, will not automatically translate into same roll of events in the forecoming decade. This will be improved, if the council show what was the state of Pine as far as how leveraged it was before and after the plan was taken place. Questions about macro-economic cannot be addressed with great accuracy many times. Notwithstanding, questions as such shouldn’t be ignored and neglected while making plans. So, in order to improve to council recommendation, the council should refer the issue of macro-economy as much as it could. And that will lead to a better analysis.
To conclude, the council of Maple County, should make a much more careful comparision with the Pine’s County data. Failing to address the points which where discussed here by, would lead to a unpleasant surprises during the deployment of the Maple County plan.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 121, Rule ID: NEAR_BY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'nearby'?
Suggestion: nearby
...change current policy on the basis of a near by county. This argument is not sufficient...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 256, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'assumptions'?
Suggestion: assumptions
...d thorough decision. There are few wide assumption which are faulty and are careless and n...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 325, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a careful manner" with adverb for "careful"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...nd are careless and need to be examined in a careful manner in order to make the plan of Maple&apos...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 294, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... comparison to Pine county. Additionaly, The size of available are should be disc...
^^
Line 7, column 153, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...ears the real estate marker could be in a extremly different state of being. For ...
^
Line 9, column 196, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... where discussed here by, would lead to a unpleasant surprises during the deploym...
^
Line 9, column 209, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'surprise'?
Suggestion: surprise
...sed here by, would lead to a unpleasant surprises during the deployment of the Maple Coun...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, while, for instance, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2342.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83884297521 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70664311382 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485537190083 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 705.55239521 103% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8426066927 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.5833333333 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1666666667 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.20833333333 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194765463847 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569483564224 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0545278345161 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129855884705 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413973473543 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.92 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.