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.
Concerned with the county becoming overdeveloped, the council of Maple County has posed a solution to the problem. The council states that preventing the development of existing farmland in the county would sufficiently protect their citizens from living on overdeveloped terrain. However beneficial, the lawmakers have studied neighboring counties and, incorrectly, conclude that this measure would cause housing prices to rise significantly. The council cites similar increases within Pine County as evidence for their findings but seems to ignore evidence originating from other counties. Therefore, this conclusion is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed.
Firstly, the council bases its evidence on what happened in Pine County after they introduced restrictions on the development of residential housing fifteen years ago. This specious comparison hinges on the assumption that restrictions on new residential housing have the same effect as halting development on existing farmland. The author of the argument cites no studies or valid research providing any proof for this matter, thus converting the evidence into an underdeveloped assumption.
Secondly, the city council has not taken into account the era in which the other counties passed their laws. The underlying factors, such as the political and economic climate have changed and demand to be investigated before any parallels can be drawn. Whereas Pine County established a similar measure fifteen years ago, Chestnut County did so only ten years ago. The fact that the former had disastrous consequences for the housing market but the latter did not, raises an important issue. If a mere five-year-difference can have such an impact on the outcome of a proposal, then it is safe to infer that passing a similar law an astounding ten years later will have an incomparable impact that begs for further investigation of economic and political circumstances.
Moreover, the author makes use of vague language that renders it impossible to correctly estimate the increase in housing prices in Maple County. By citing that the costs in Chestnut County have only “increased modestly”, the council provides no way of comparing the actual numbers. Similarly, the lawmakers conclude that the prices in Maple County “will significantly” increase, again making it unclear by what percentage the prices will rocket after implementing the new measure.
Even though the conclusion is not based on valid evidence, there is some merit to the underlying issue. The county council should invest time and resources in studying their neighboring counties properly. They should determine the specific percentages by which housing prices have risen and clearly delineate the differences and similarities between their proposed measure and Pine County’s implemented law.
In conclusion, the assertion that the housing prices in Maple County will rise significantly is not based on any coherent evidence. It is clear the city council needs to further investigate the claims on which they have built a proposal. Only then will they be able to properly predict the changes in housing prices.
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'similarly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'whereas', 'in conclusion', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.261194029851 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.158582089552 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0839552238806 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0652985074627 0.0520304965353 126% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0261194029851 0.0272364105082 96% => OK
Prepositions: 0.108208955224 0.125424944231 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0578358208955 0.0416121511921 139% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.10845551033 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0167910447761 0.026700313972 63% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.121268656716 0.113004496875 107% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0205223880597 0.0255425247493 80% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0149253731343 0.0127820249294 117% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3163.0 2731.13054187 116% => OK
No of words: 480.0 446.07635468 108% => OK
Chars per words: 6.58958333333 6.12365571057 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.441666666667 0.378187486979 117% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.34375 0.287650121315 120% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.245833333333 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.164583333333 0.135150697306 122% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10845551033 2.79052419416 111% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 207.018472906 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5125 0.469332199767 109% => OK
Word variations: 60.0545437254 52.1807786196 115% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 21.8181818182 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.2109115589 57.7814097925 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.772727273 141.986410481 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8181818182 23.2022227129 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.727272727273 0.724660767414 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 56.1931818182 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.70895522388 1.8405768891 93% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.604642218223 0.441005458295 137% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.104462535903 0.135418324435 77% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0830053280368 0.0829849096947 100% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.56945310167 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.142107405831 0.147661913831 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.245009421425 0.193483328276 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124204434361 0.0970749176394 128% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.376804072682 0.42659136922 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0262557421753 0.0774707102158 34% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.403740664207 0.312017818177 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874264251805 0.0698173142475 125% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => 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: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.