The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The environmental protection group state that the small piece of land belonging to Youngtown Wildlife Preserve must not be sold to the Smith Corporation since it will have pernicious environmental consequences. They back this claim by arguing that the sanctuary is home to 300 bird species and the corporation aims to build a hotel in that area which will likely cause danger to the birds. Though the argument seems cogent at the first glance, there are a few logical fallacies since it is based on several assumptions.
Primarily, the group assumes that the construction of the hotel by Smith Corporation will surely hamper tourism in the town. But this is not necessarily true. It is likely that, Smith Corporation is building a small hotel in order to provide stay for the tourists that come to the town to see the birds in the sanctuary. If this were true, then a hotel in the wildlife so close to the birds will surely attract more tourists. This way, tourism in the town will improve and the sale will be of mutual benefit to the town as well as the corporation. the The protection group dismisses this possibility altogether which makes their claim specious at best.
Additionally, the group assumes the financial status of the town and the sanctuary to be in a good position. However, it is possible that the town lacks the monetary resources to maintain the sanctuary and is looking to sell the piece of land to Smith Corporation in order to generate revenue and alleviate their impecunious state. Through this sale, Youngtown Wildlife Preserve can get enough money in order to sustain the bird population and even improve the condition of the sanctuary. If this were true, then it seriously undermines the claim made by the group.
The protection group also assumes that the proposed construction will have deleterious effects on the area. However, this assumption cannot be justified without proper evidence. It is plausible that Smith Corporation can construct the hotel with no damage to the environment. Additionally, they may include technologies such as solar energy harvesting and rain water harvesting which may prove to be beneficial to the environment. If their construction methods are environment friendly and they include such features in their construction, then the claim made by the group does not hold water.
In conclusion, as it stands, the claim is not persuasive enough since it bases its arguments on several unwarranted assumptions. Only when these assumptions are explicitly stated and answered can we fully evaluate the veracity of their claim.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-02 | Harshali_15 | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-23 | rohitx71 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-05 | calidriver25 | 69 | view |
| 2019-09-26 | knagda007 | 77 | view |
| 2019-04-24 | ShrutheeshIR | 55 | view |
- The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is es 55
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition An ailing 70
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2116 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.967 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.791 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.708 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.544 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 549, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...to the town as well as the corporation. the The protection group dismisses this pos...
^^^
Line 3, column 549, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...to the town as well as the corporation. the The protection group dismisses this possibi...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 549, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'The' is left.
Suggestion: the; The
...to the town as well as the corporation. the The protection group dismisses this possibi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, then, well, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2166.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 426.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08450704225 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54310108192 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87169325362 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469483568075 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 660.6 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => 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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.8437286585 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.3 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.200300435941 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646479063863 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0532143928397 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114911086337 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.065530523884 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.