In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.”
According to the conclusion of this editorial, the new and larger building of town hall in place of the old one will help in saving money and energy. However, many points given in support of the views of the writer are not very convincing. Although, there is no doubt that the new proposed building will have many advantages over the old town hall, but the author has ignored to mention many important points. He has completely failed to provide evidence for his reasons to build the new building. The points given by the author have no relevant relation among themselves. For example, the cost effectiveness and the fact that the old building is not able to accommodate its employees are not related anywhere. He has tried to explain the need of the new town hall but has neglected to suggest the alternative measures that can be taken to solve the problems faced by the old town hall.
The author has talked about the larger and the energy efficient new building. According to him, it would cost less per cubic foot to heat and cool the new building as compared to the old town hall building. However, he has easily forgotten to mention the overall cost of heating and cooling the much larger new building. This cost might be much higher than the current expenses. In addition, there will be the costs of constructing the new building and installing new systems. The author has not even mentioned the option of installing new heating and cooling systems in the old building. The upgradation of the old system might be more cost effective. Besides, the new building might also need some maintenance fee to maintain the new facilities added to the building.
The second point on which the author is insisting is that the current building cannot comfortably accommodate all the people who work in it. This point is anyways not related to the money saving measures the author is talking about. Here again, the author has ignored other more effective solutions for this problem. For example, adding another structure for the employees.
Another point is about the renting out of the parts of the new property to generate some income. However, the views of the author are contradictory as on one hand, he is explaining the need of a larger building and on the other hand, he is talking about the renting out some part of property. Hence, if the new and larger building is the need of the hour then there is no scope of additional income. The author has failed to give enough and strong evidence for the requirement of the new building. He has also forgotten to consider the heritage value of the Rockingham’s century old town hall.
Hence, the author has to collect more information about the old building. The author must search for some solid evidence. He should do a complete and detailed study of comparing the cost effectiveness of both the options including the initial cost of setting up the new building and replacing the old heating system in the old building. The author has to work towards making his editorial logically more correct.
- Society should make efforts to save endangered species only if the potential extinction of those species is the result of human activities.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 16
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive Reason: 50
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places. 16
- Claim: Colleges and universities should specify all required courses and eliminate elective courses in order to provide clear guidance for students.Reason: College students — like people in general — prefer to follow directions rather than make their 50
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 16
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2466 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.67 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.454 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.012 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.149 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, besides, but, hence, however, if, second, so, then, as to, for example, in addition, no doubt, talking about, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2539.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 528.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80871212121 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57589613598 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403409090909 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.7082156787 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.6785714286 119.503703932 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8571428571 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.03571428571 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253646250001 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.077477433465 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0745228453661 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149472564778 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658176224687 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.3799401198 74% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.62 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.