The author states that the Rockingham’s century-old town hall be torn down and replaced with new larger building that would be more energy efficient, commodious and economical. The author jumped to these conclusions based on the assumptions that the old townhall can’t comfortably accommodate all the people employed in the town and the cost of heating and cooling the building is remarkably high. This argument is rife with holes and assumption and the evidence isn’t strong enough to make it viable. Thus, before this recommendation can be evaluated two questions must be answered.
Firstly, are all the people employed by the town ever to appear in the townhall at the same time? The town employs a number of people working in various fields and the chances of all of them being present concurrently in the same room is less likely. It’s possible that a clique of people use the townhall at one time. If this is true the townhall has enough room for people. Since, the townhall is used only for special occasions, accomodating a large number of people is still possible; if not “comfortably” accomodating them. If either of these points has merit, then conclusion drawn in the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, will the cost of tearing down and building a new townhall worth the cost being decreased? In other words, to save the cost of heating and cooling the building, is it economical enough to bear the cost of building a new energy efficient townhall? The expense of tearing down and building is way too large to compensate for the small amount of money spent in air conditioning. It’s also possible that the new building, given that it’s larger in size will likely cost more for air conditioning, despite being energy efficient. If the above is true, the argument doesn’t hold water.
Thirdly, is renting rooms in townhall cost efficient? Renting rooms will definitely generate income but the construction and maintenance cost is still gonna add up. If extra room is required it’s possible for conflicts to occur under improper management. The author should mention details of how he is to outlet the extra room and the rules associated in the advent of such controversy.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is to answer the above two questions and offer valid evidence, then it’s possible to fully evaluate the viability of the recommendation to build a new town hall.
- 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 accommod 60
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain 66
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 60
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2033 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.84 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.717 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.224 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 446, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...nly for special occasions, accomodating a large number of people is still possible; if not “comfo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 444, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: larger
... that the new building, given that it’s larger in size will likely cost more for air condition...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, thus, in conclusion, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2113.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05502392344 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86829734241 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495215311005 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.2087400681 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.619047619 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9047619048 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.247919208379 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636738484795 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0922372002351 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124865989536 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0988703314206 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.