The following was written as part of a study weighing the benefits of a new construction project
in the city of Winterville. Car racing is extremely popular in the city of Winterville: over 20,000 Winterville residentsattended the state’s annual 500-lap race last summer, and the highest-rated television program in Winterville is “Race Talk,” which is broadcast every night. Also, many successful race-cardrivers live in Winterville. However, the nearest racetrack is over 150 miles away from Winterville. Given the popularity of car racing in Winterville, and a recent report indicating that the average race fan spends close to $500 per year attending car races, a new racetrack in Winterville would be very profitable.
The argument in the study regarding the possibilities of constructing a race track seem to rely on the reason that car racing is a popular sport in Winterville. The argument is flawed for numerous reasons, primarily because of the absence of reliable facts regarding the attendance of race car fans in proportion to the total population. The conclusion that building a new race-track in Winterville will be profitable, relies on uncertain justifications, causing the argument to be invalid.
The first flaw in the argument is the flaw of proportions itself. The attendance of 20,000 fans does not qualify much, since we are not given another reference to make a comparison with. If the total population was 30,000, then the argument’s point of popularity could have some weight. But what if the the total population was 2 million people? The fans would represent just 1% of the total population and the claim that the sport was popular would be invalid through this point. In order to remove this objection, the study should be clearer and represent numerical data with references. By having the population of the town or even a percentage in relation to the total population, a better understanding could be obtained.
The argument also states that the high rating of the television show “Race Talk” means that race car is popular among its citizens. This jump in rapidly evaluating the choices of citizens is perplexing. Several observations can be made regarding this clear jump. Firstly, high-rating does not represent the number of people watching. For example, Planet Earth is rated 9.0/10 on IMDB. This does not mean that Planet Earth is very popular among people, but it relates to the quality of the show or how entertaining it is. The folks in Winterville may enjoy the show, but that does not mean the whole town tunes in to watch it. Secondly, the cause of the high-ratings could be because of another factor. It could be possible people watch the show because of the TV-host or if famous celebrities like Robert Downey Jr. make an appearance on the show. To improve the argument then, it is important to define what high-rating means. Clarity can be further improved by considering the viewers tunes in the show per night, and creating a histogram showing the viewership over a period of 6 months.
Another flaw the argument makes is to assume that the average fan is equivalent to a Winterville fan. Averages rely on the whole population, and in this case, the whole population of the country. As such, there are bound to be some outliers that would change the average significantly. Because of this factor, it is not appropriate to use data of an average fan for a Winterville fan. Since we also talk about the spending of a fan, this can be related to the financial condition of the fan as well as the economy of the city the particular fan is from. If Winterville, is a poor town, it is unlikely that fans can pay $500 per year. The argument can be strengthened by including factual data of the economic condition of Winterville. Data for the spending of citizens of Winterville can then be plotted against the country-wise trends to see where the town lies. This comparison can give a quick idea. A better justification can be made with a town with a similar spending pattern.
In conclusion, due to the clear flaws in the argument relating to the proportions, definitions and equating averages to the whole community, the argument’s conclusion is deemed invalid. As such, without essential facts to back-up the argument, the conclusion is unconvincing and building a race-track for these reasons is completely inappropriate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-18 | talhanadeem07 | 47 | view |
- In a study of the music listening preferences of Hollyland residents conducted by the University of Sunnyland most respondents listed their favorite type of music as country However another study indicated that in Hollyland the most frequently downloaded 62
- Students are more responsible for their educations than are their teachers. 50
- The following was written as part of a study weighing the benefits of a new construction projectin the city of Winterville. Car racing is extremely popular in the city of Winterville: over 20,000 Winterville residentsattended the state’s annual 500-lap 47
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected. However, since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations, we cannot permi 86
- All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 33 15
No. of Words: 618 350
No. of Characters: 2959 1500
No. of Different Words: 267 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.986 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.788 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.84 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 163 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.727 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.743 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.576 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.261 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.437 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... in proportion to the total population. The conclusion that building a new race-tra...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...using the argument to be invalid. The first flaw in the argument is the flaw ...
^^^
Line 5, column 67, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ment is the flaw of proportions itself. The attendance of 20,000 fans does not qual...
^^^
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ity could have some weight. But what if the the total population was 2 million people? ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 305, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ity could have some weight. But what if the the total population was 2 million people? ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 785, Rule ID: FAMOUS_CELEBRITY[1]
Message: Use simply 'celebrities'.
Suggestion: celebrities
...h the show because of the TV-host or if famous celebrities like Robert Downey Jr. make an appearan...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, well, for example, in conclusion, as well as, on the whole
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3068.0 2260.96107784 136% => OK
No of words: 617.0 441.139720559 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97244732577 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.98392262146 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97391747507 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 275.0 204.123752495 135% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445705024311 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 957.6 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0212982784 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.9696969697 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.696969697 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0303030303 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123841140294 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0325986170386 0.0743258471296 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0457425051692 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0749530446774 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0454406767583 0.0628817314937 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.