The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper provides the argument that in order to make better usage of Oak City limited budget, Oak City should give a vote to only residents. Some points are logically convincing at first glance, but there is defect which affects argument negatively.
The first question should be asked is that how foolish objection came from people who are not living in Oak City. When it comes to foolish objection, specifically, why is it foolish? Does it irrelevant to issue? This type of question should be answered because it is too subjective to say just because non-residents people are not living in a Oak City.
The second question should be asked is that why people who work in Oak City don’t fully understand about politics and businesses. People who work in Oak City but living in elsewhere, are the people who can possibly understand more the issue that Oak City has. Because best way of use budget is always issue in every city, non-residents who works in Oak City would give a suggestion about what other city does. So it could fracture argument. There should a clause that if non-residents who works in Oak City are not interested in Oak City politics, then it would make sense that they wouldn’t fully understand.
Lastly, question should be asked is that how come residents of Oak City would understand money improve city. Not just because residents of Oak City pay their city taxes, it doesn’t means that they would understand more on the politics and businesses. To make sure residents would understand more on this argument, there should be clause that residents of Oak City concern about limited budget and interested in city’s policy. Then only residents vote would be possible to make better place to live and work.
In conclusion, when it comes to these solution to the defect, it will help to make sure that the argument would be more valuable and coherent to be understood.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 342, 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
... non-residents people are not living in a Oak City. The second question shoul...
^
Line 5, column 208, Rule ID: MAY_COULD_POSSIBLY[1]
Message: Use simply 'can'.
Suggestion: can
...living in elsewhere, are the people who can possibly understand more the issue that Oak City...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 33, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this solution' or 'these solutions'?
Suggestion: this solution; these solutions
...rk. In conclusion, when it comes to these solution to the defect, it will help to make sur...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 161, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...valuable and coherent to be understood.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, lastly, second, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1617.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 329.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91489361702 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65525137137 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 204.123752495 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.428571428571 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 513.0 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.471057884232 637% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.6453721641 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.0625 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5625 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4375 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.35542490477 0.218282227539 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.138956972647 0.0743258471296 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.131424533096 0.0701772020484 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.208557756066 0.128457276422 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.146222778068 0.0628817314937 233% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.22 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 54.0 98.500998004 55% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.