The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.
"Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because it has spectacular natural beauty and a consistent climate. Another advantage is that housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Moreover, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. And best of all, retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The article stated above is faulty for numerous reasons. Essentially, the author rests the argument on a foundationless assumption that favorable settings for all retirees are identical. Concluding that Clearview should be the top choice for those seeking to retire based on the prior stated assumption is unreasonable.
Firstly, the argument fails to provide evidence to support the similarities between all retirees to exist. To start, it is assumed by the arguer that ones view of natural beauty will be consistent with anothers. Natural beauty for one individual could include greenery while another prefers the desert. If Clearview naturally grows tons of trees and plants, the resident that favors a drier looking environment may not see this city to be spectacularly beautiful. Moreover, the author does not state the type of consistent climate Clearview has. It is possible that this city has a tropical and humid climate. But if one is more inclined to enjoy rainy and wet weather, then this area will not be of interest to them. By assuming that all residents have the similar preferences and not considering the diversity that is extant in preferences of people, the argument is unjustified. On the other hand, if the article specified the type of climate and beauty that Clearview encompasses, it would make the argument more plausible. In either case, the author would continue to presume that all retirees favor the same environments.
Going forward, the author neglects to address other issues presented. Imagine, there is a credible method to assume all citizens have the similar likings, it is still baseless to conclude that Clearview should be a top choice for retirement living. So, the argument continues to ignore other factors that could influence the decisions of older residents. Take into account the low cost of living in Clearview. It could be possible that there is an incline in gang-related activity in that area, making the area increasingly unsafe. This distinguishing factor could be the reason of fallen housing costs. Even supposing the city of Clearview is completely safe, the author cannot completely guarantee excellent healthcare for the retirees. There is a possibility that a majority of the physicians in that are pediatricians. Meaning, these doctors are unable to fully care for older citizens. This would render the assumption of excellent healthcare as illogical. However, if the author shed light on the types of physicians subsumed in the area, the argument would be strengthened. But it would still fail to consider other factors that could be the reason of low housing costs.
Lastly, the article is built upon undescriptive statements. For example, the author states “Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services.” Though there are services that are looking to be improved by the city, it is not clear what services will actually apply to the older individuals. If the city builds new skateparks, this will definitely not benefit the retired community. This would further undermine the argument.
As a result of the various unwarranted presumptions made by the argument, the author fails to compile a compelling case to prove that all retirees will indeed favor Clearview.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2688 1500
No. of Different Words: 258 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.13 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.766 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.903 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.275 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.484 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.246 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.369 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 177, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...l retirees will indeed favor Clearview.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, may, moreover, so, still, then, while, for example, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2766.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 524.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2786259542 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89107209954 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49427480916 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 862.2 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.1952510339 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.2 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4666666667 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.24825892721 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616597955321 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0690582166418 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137157171899 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0783672237544 0.0628817314937 125% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.03 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 151.0 98.500998004 153% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.