"In the next mayoral election, residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green, who is a
member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than for Frank Braun, a member of the Clearview
town council, because the current members are not protecting our environment. For example,
during the past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, air pollution levels have
increased, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory
illnesses. If we elect Ann Green, the environmental problems in Clearview will certainly be
solved."
The editorial recommended that people should vote for Ann Green rather than for Frank Braun. Because Frank Braun is a member of Clearview town council whose members, currently, are not protecting environment. Moreover, during past year the number of factories in Clearview has doubled. Besides, local hospital treated 25 percent more patient with respiratory illness. Though the editorial's recommendation is appealing, clear scrutiny of evidences reveals that the editorial's argument is based on some faulty assumption.
In citing evidence to back the editorial's argument up, the editorial stated that Ann Green is a member of the Green Earth Coalition where Frank Braun is a member of the Clearview town council and members of town council, currently, are not protecting the environment. Here, the editorial assumes that Ann Green, a member of Green Earth Coalition, will protect the environment. In assuming that editorial did not give any evidence regarding members of the Green Earth Coalition. For example, It is possible that members of the Green Earth Coalition will not protect the environment. Besides, It may be the case that Ann Green will not protect the environment, despite members of the Green Earth Coalition doing so. Since the editorial fails to state this several facts, the argument is not valid.
Further, the editorial assumes that town council is liable for the last year's increase in the number of factories rather than other phenomenon. The editorial did not give any evidence regarding this unwarranted assumption. It may happen that business typhoons are liable for the increase in factories which increases air pollution. It is also probable that members of the Green Earth Coalition use cars frequently than members of Clearview town council. As a result they are liable for the air pollution.
Moreover, the editorial assumes that increase in the number of patients with respiratory illness is caused by the air of Clearview town. It may be the case that most of the people with respiratory illness admitted in hospital of Clearview are the residents of other towns rather than that of Clearview. It may also happen that their illness is caused by the air of other town rather that of Clearview. Since the editorial ruled out these possible situations, I cannot accept his recommendation regarding who voters should elect to city council.
In a nutshell, the editorial cannot justify his voting recommendation on the basis of scant evidence. If the editorial provides extra evidences regarding unwarranted assumptions stated above, it would be more justifiable.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-05-06 | Jumoke Victoria Olorunleke | 69 | view |
| 2020-11-25 | Wolf Salvatore | 58 | view |
| 2020-11-24 | pappu97cu | 60 | view |
| 2019-09-20 | King kobra | 62 | view |
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts 50
- In the next mayoral election residents of Clearview should vote for Ann Green who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition rather than for Frank Braun a member of the Clearview town council because the current members are not protecting our environment For 60
- The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University Fifteen years ago Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors Since that time Omega professors 62
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and suppor 50
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 412 350
No. of Characters: 2138 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.505 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.189 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.736 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 163 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.727 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.281 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.147 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 380, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'editorials'' or 'editorial's'?
Suggestion: editorials'; editorial's
...nt with respiratory illness. Though the editorials recommendation is appealing, clear scru...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 465, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'editorials'' or 'editorial's'?
Suggestion: editorials'; editorial's
... scrutiny of evidences reveals that the editorials argument is based on some faulty assump...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'editorials'' or 'editorial's'?
Suggestion: editorials'; editorial's
...ion. In citing evidence to back the editorials argument up, the editorial stated that ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, for example, in fact, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2192.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32038834951 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83243171703 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.400485436893 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 666.9 705.55239521 95% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.6460543358 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.6363636364 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7272727273 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72727272727 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.433400968863 0.218282227539 199% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.142708086112 0.0743258471296 192% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.132584135756 0.0701772020484 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.234231807374 0.128457276422 182% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.128634410392 0.0628817314937 205% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => 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: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.4 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.