Several charitable organizations in Pleasantville provide opportunities for teenagers to engage in community service. These organizations have a great need for volunteers, but in recent years, the number of teenage volunteers has significantly declined.
The Pleasantville School Board should take measures to increase the number of volunteers. Teachers, parents, and other community members agree that it is important for young people to learn the value of community service. Requiring high school students to engage in community service would provide much-needed assistance to worthy local charities and would also help young people understand the importance of giving back to their community. For this reason, the Pleasantville School Board should institute a program requiring students of Pleasantville High School to complete 40 hours of community service prior to graduation.
Involvement of teenagers and youths in charitable community services brings positive results both for the youth and the community. For this reason The Pleasantville school board has stated to make the compulsion of 40 hours community service prior to the graduation. Though the claim is somewhat reasonable, it is far too extreme to be pragmatic. It is based on incomplete premises and riffed with so many fallacies regarding the youths and teenagers and has failed to take the choices and interests of teenagers into consideration.
The first fallacy is they provide opportunities of teenagers to engage in community services. We are not given any evidences on whether the teenagers are interested in the community work, what is the community work for, its aims and targets. The youths are less likely to involve in anything that doesn’t interest them from within. The claim would be more profound if there would be mention of what kind of opportunities are they providing for the teenagers and are they able to attract them.
According to the statement, there seems to be the great need of volunteers but fails to mention the reason. Similarly it states that the number has greatly diminished within the recent years. What if these two incidents are inter-related, What if in the name of social work; someone is working for some personal benefits and the number has reduced when the volunteers found this out and are not willing for anyone’s personal benefits. As in above case, the claim needs to be justified with evidences to hold true.
Again, the major fallacies here seem to be the dis-regard of the teenagers. The one which are to be involved are shunned and the views and agreements of the teachers, parents and other elders are taken into account. They cannot decide what is good and what is not good for the teenagers. The teenagers should be allowed to think for themselves. If they are forced to do something without their own will, it is never going to succeed. So, for the claim to be valid the active ones should be given enough consideration.
Among many other fallacies, the claim seems to be driven by the motives of charity rather than the benefits of the young ones. The consideration here is that when the youths take part in social charity programmers they will collect more funds with their charisma and charm and their innocence. But what we don't know is what are the charities programmers for. The reasons seems somehow obscured. In order to get the better results the volunteers should be well- awared of what the charities are for and what beneficiaries it will have on the society and to themselves.
Furthermore, the school board has made the 40 hours community service mandatory on the basis of some unwarranted premises and assumptions. They must discuss with the volunteers and consider how they view this new imposing rules and only after considering all options such rules must be imposed.
In the conclusion, the teenagers and their views regarding the mandatory service should be re-examined, backed with some meaningful assumptions and complete evidences which can convince the youths and motivates toward the social work rather than force them to do something they do not want.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 18, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...into consideration. The first fallacy is they provide opportunities of teenage...
^^
Line 5, column 109, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Similarly,
...nteers but fails to mention the reason. Similarly it states that the number has greatly d...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 121, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ty rather than the benefits of the young ones. The consideration here is that whe...
^^
Line 9, column 308, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... charm and their innocence. But what we dont know is what are the charities programm...
^^^^
Line 9, column 373, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'seem'.
Suggestion: seem
... charities programmers for. The reasons seems somehow obscured. In order to get the b...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 17, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...y and to themselves. Furthermore, the school board has made the 40 hours commu...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'regarding', 'similarly', 'so', 'well', 'kind of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.225423728814 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.179661016949 0.15541462614 116% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0745762711864 0.0836205057962 89% => OK
Adverbs: 0.035593220339 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0440677966102 0.0272364105082 162% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.11186440678 0.125424944231 89% => OK
Participles: 0.0423728813559 0.0416121511921 102% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75459212548 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0372881355932 0.026700313972 140% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.110169491525 0.113004496875 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0220338983051 0.0255425247493 86% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0254237288136 0.0127820249294 199% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3246.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 540.0 446.07635468 121% => OK
Chars per words: 6.01111111111 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.331481481481 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.253703703704 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190740740741 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.15 0.135150697306 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75459212548 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 207.018472906 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.466666666667 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 55.0236014439 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.7692307692 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.994044277 57.7814097925 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.846153846 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7692307692 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.346153846154 0.724660767414 48% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.14285714286 136% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 46.1396011396 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.46405228758 1.8405768891 80% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.289286100223 0.441005458295 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0955259268696 0.135418324435 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0548364953857 0.0829849096947 66% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.581099322384 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.138870306548 0.147661913831 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124142469863 0.193483328276 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0660269532717 0.0970749176394 68% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.46838253143 0.42659136922 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.102169612549 0.0774707102158 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.189921953054 0.312017818177 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0682930638403 0.0698173142475 98% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.33743842365 204% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.