The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.
"Because of its spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate, Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire. As a bonus, housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and real estate taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Nevertheless, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. 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 stated magazine article about planning considering Clearview as an option for housing after retirement seems axiomatic. The author cites its beautiful nature and consistent climate, housing costs and relatively low tax rate, development of new programs, and above the average health care to support the claim. However, there are many evidences that need to be provided; otherwise, the argument is incomplete.
To begin with, the author assumes that people prefer spectacular natural beauty and consistent climate over other features when choosing their housing. Nevertheless, people might choose their houses according to other factors such as accessibility to downtown, cost, and size of the house. There are so many variables that can shift people's mind, which calls for evidence that shows nature is one of the top factors for people during their housing selection process.
Furthermore, the author conjectures that Clearview housing is competitive in price since its housing costs have fallen radically during the past year, and real estate taxes are relatively lower compared to those in neighboring towns. Nonetheless, if the fallen cost is still greater than other housing options, and its total cost is too great to compensate for its lower tax, then Clearview housing option will not be attractive to customers. Therefore, more specific evidence regarding Clearview's competence in cost is needed to bolster the claim.
Another supposition the author relies the assertion is that improvement through town's new programs would provide better environment for the town's prospective residents. However, prospective customers might want their town to be extremely quiet especially since the housing is for people to reside in after their retirements. Thereby, residents of the town might not like the new programs and expansion of facilities. Also, even if people want it, the exact date of new programs is not cited, which is a very important information for customers. The author has to give more information about people's wants regarding their housing after retirement and the exact date of new programs to strengthen the claim.
Lastly, the author posits that more physicians means better health services. However, it could be that there are more physicians in town because the bar is lower in that town, thus enabling people to become physicians without much difficulty. Also, the author fails to consider the physician ratio per one individual. If the number of residents well exceed the number of residents in other towns, thus making the ratio really high, then the author's argument that the town has better health service will remain flawed. Evidences regarding quality of physicians and exact ratio of physicans per person are needed for the claim to become more logical.
In sum, the author's assertion relies on suppositions that are logically flawed. To strengthen the claim, it is required for the author to give more information about people's preferences, detailed data of cost of housing, people's thoughts on mayor's new programs and their exact date, and more evidence that shows the town's health service is high quality.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Evidences regarding quality of physicians and exact ratio of physicans per person are needed for the claim to become more logical.
Error: physicans Suggestion: physicians
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2601 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.265 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.606 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.846 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'physicians'' or 'physician's'?
Suggestion: physicians'; physician's
... Lastly, the author posits that more physicians means better health services. However, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 442, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... making the ratio really high, then the authors argument that the town has better healt...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...to become more logical. In sum, the authors assertion relies on suppositions that a...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 317, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'towns'' or 'town's'?
Suggestion: towns'; town's
... date, and more evidence that shows the towns health service is high quality.
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'nonetheless', 'really', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'as to', 'such as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.282846715328 0.25644967241 110% => OK
Verbs: 0.151459854015 0.15541462614 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.100364963504 0.0836205057962 120% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0602189781022 0.0520304965353 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0255474452555 0.0272364105082 94% => OK
Prepositions: 0.113138686131 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0346715328467 0.0416121511921 83% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67115062267 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0328467153285 0.026700313972 123% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0748175182482 0.113004496875 66% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.014598540146 0.0255425247493 57% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.014598540146 0.0127820249294 114% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3158.0 2731.13054187 116% => OK
No of words: 494.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.39271255061 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71445763274 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.412955465587 0.378187486979 109% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.293522267206 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.220647773279 0.208842608468 106% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.155870445344 0.135150697306 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67115062267 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475708502024 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 54.8248170721 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 23.5238095238 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.1824811394 57.7814097925 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.380952381 141.986410481 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5238095238 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.904761904762 0.724660767414 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 52.8760362445 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.81538461538 1.8405768891 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.314337691978 0.441005458295 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109960284327 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0615605226267 0.0829849096947 74% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.577955909476 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.113807416888 0.147661913831 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125046694783 0.193483328276 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0596490754476 0.0970749176394 61% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.361684639456 0.42659136922 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0747943453461 0.0774707102158 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209496380879 0.312017818177 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0535461492307 0.0698173142475 77% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => 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.