he 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 asserts that imposing a restriction on development of farmland into residential areas would lead to increase in housing prices in Maple County, on a premise that is formulated on precedent examples of Chestnut County and Pine County. Although, the rise in housing prices in Chestnut County is modest and are observed over a shorter span as compare to those in Pine County. One can infer from this underdevelopment and discord in evidence that the argument is questionable.
To begin with, coherent data from other county are missing in the argument, the current conclusion drawn by council would have been more sound provided the information of rise in residential property prices from other places where the population, area and available land was similar to Maple County. The given examples as stated earlier lack this coherence and are unfurnished.
Moreover, the reasons for rise in price in the Pine county are not clear, the inflammation could have been a result of private investments from residents and firms in that area. Expecting a rise in price, these firms may have acquired the available housing and now, predilection to skimming profits of their investment, are selling the houses on increased rates. Answering that residential property is not being withheld for purpose of making profit would have made the conclusion more plausible.
On the other hand, the data from Chestnut County is too vague to be able to draw any results. The mild rise in property cost over a decade can imply any of the debated conclusions. The rise in the Chestnut County has not been properly analogized to the situation of other county, they might as well have faced similar rise in prices of houses without any ban on development of new residential areas, thus the limned conclusion appear biased. Eliciting that other county have not reported an increment in residential property would have made the conclusion impartial.
Conclusively, the argument is well debated and council could have drawn a more compelling conclusion if the above mentioned questions would have answered.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, may, moreover, so, thus, well, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1760.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19174041298 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79058541776 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.486725663717 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 560.7 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.3285657643 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.384615385 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0769230769 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15384615385 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.137964827014 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0529724194056 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0530312032634 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0893946331753 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424423431103 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.1 14.3799401198 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.