The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin.
The argument made in the newspaper editorial was that the efforts should be taken to return the illegal immigrants back to their respective countries. The opponents have come to the conclusion based upon the threats posed by illegal immigrants without proper evidence. However, before this recommendations can be efficiently evaluated following questions needs to be answered.
Firstly, The author states that autonomy of any country is based upon the strength of its borders but it is not true for every country since the strength of every country varies and depends on myriad of factors. For example, the strength of Asian countries depends on amount of import and export, military power, economy and democracy. The above example pleads to fall author's assumption into question. Without substantial evidence and supporting view points one cannot conclude the autonomy of country based upon strength of its borders. Hence, autonomy is a dubious word to define since many factors play a vital role in determining it.
Additionally, the author prompts that national identity and economy is endangered which might be true up to a limit but the scope is too narrow and limited. People in European countries can travel in Europe without a difficult immigrant check that makes author's assertion that national identity is endangered specious. European countries face a dearth in population so if the illegal immigrants work in that country will bolster the country's production as well as economy since country will need more people to work for them. Hence, the author's statement seems to be unjustified and one-sided.
Secondly, if efforts made to return the immigrants back might be very tedious and time consuming. Also, lots of economy and planning needs to be done to send them back. Since, the above view points hold a considerable weight and the conclusion of the argument can be weakened if the above scenario occur.
To recapitulate, the above arguments are flawed and based on unwarranted assumptions. It needs more evidence to support the author's viewpoint. However, if the author is able to answer the above mentioned questions then it is viable to send back illegal immigrants to their respective countries else the argument does not hold water and might have major consequences faced later.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-11 | Kaira | 48 | view |
| 2023-08-01 | BusariMoruf | 50 | view |
| 2023-07-14 | Gnyana | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-28 | Technoblade | 70 | view |
| 2023-04-01 | aiswaryae | 50 | view |
- The first step to self Knowledge is to reject the familiar 58
- The best way for a society to prepare its young is to instill a sense of both competition and cooperation 16
- The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked both its economy and national identity are endangered Because illegal immigrants pose such threats every effort mu 59
- Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men an 58
- The best way for a society to prepare its young is to instill a sense of both competition and cooperation 16
Comments
e-rater score report
Sentence: However, before this recommendations can be efficiently evaluated following questions needs to be answered.
Description: A determiner/pronoun, singular is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to this and recommendations
Sentence: Additionally, the author prompts that national identity and economy is endangered which might be true up to a limit but the scope is too narrow and limited.
Description: An adjective is not usually followed by an adverb, particle
Suggestion: Refer to true and up
Sentence: Since, the above view points hold a considerable weight and the conclusion of the argument can be weakened if the above scenario occur.
Description: The fragment scenario occur . is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace occur with verb, past tense
Sentence: Hence, the author's statement seems to be unjustified and one-sided.
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 369 350
No. of Characters: 1899 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.383 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.146 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.692 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.038 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.55 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 286, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ithout proper evidence. However, before this recommendations can be efficiently eval...
^^^^
Line 5, column 538, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ore people to work for them. Hence, the authors statement seems to be unjustified and o...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 125, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
.... It needs more evidence to support the authors viewpoint. However, if the author is ab...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, well, for example, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1941.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 369.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26016260163 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38284983912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75300074103 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.506775067751 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 609.3 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1991994536 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.833333333 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77777777778 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.398386350286 0.218282227539 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106659350406 0.0743258471296 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0830048658933 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.192180135032 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0841854845316 0.0628817314937 134% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.