The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria.
"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the letter, the author concludes that the preservation of the beaches and buildings will improve the condition of Tria’s tourist industry in the long term. In making his conclusion, the author assumes that by charging the tourist he can raise money for replenishing sand, which he thinks will be enough for protecting the buildings along the Tria’s shore as it helped to protect those of Batia’s. However, the author’s argument is flawed for three reasons.
First of all, the author assumed that if they charge the tourists, only a few of them will be annoyed for a short time. In stark contrast to the author's prophecy, there is a possibility that the additional charge will discourage an immense number of tourists to visit Tria, thereby making the condition worse than ever. Moreover, this trend may continue for a significantly longer time. Thereby making it impossible to raise the estimated fund, which was supposed to use for a solution to their problem. If this is true, then the author’s argument is weakened.
Secondly, the author presumed that the problem of Batia’s was similar to that of Tria’s. However, it might not be the case. The buildings of Batia’s might be facing very unique and different problems, which were solved by replenishing sand. Therefore, replenishing sand may hardly help to protect the buildings of Tria’s. And this explanation is only helping to prove that the argument of the author is flawed.
Finally, the author presented the buildings as the reason for tourists’ attraction, and if the buildings are destroyed, tourists will not come. But it may also be a false assumption, and tourists may be attracted by the beach and natural elements of Tria. Therefore it is necessary to protect the beach, not the buildings to stop tourists to go elsewhere. And, if this is the case, it is only weakening the argument of the author.
To sum up, it is evident that the author’s argument, as it stands now, is flawed and based on some unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, the author needs to address the aforementioned issues by studying the problem and possible solutions with more reliable data to strengthen his argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-03 | Ifthekhar | 53 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | Kuldip851 | 58 | view |
| 2022-09-28 | Ruthvik_542 | 59 | view |
| 2022-09-25 | Vaishnavi Dixit | 67 | view |
| 2022-09-12 | Bolu | 75 | view |
- In our time specialists of all kinds are highly overrated We need more generalists people who can provide broad perspectives 50
- Originality does not mean thinking something that was never thought before it means putting old ideas together in new ways 54
- People s attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole 66
- It is no longer possible for a society to regard any living man or woman as a hero Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address the most compel 50
- In our time specialists of all kinds are highly overrated We need more generalists people who can provide broad perspectives 50
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 361 350
No. of Characters: 1745 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.359 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.834 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.562 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.09 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.368 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 145, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... a short time. In stark contrast to the authors prophecy, there is a possibility that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 165, Rule ID: VERY_UNIQUE[1]
Message: Use simply 'unique'.
Suggestion: unique
...he buildings of Batia’s might be facing very unique and different problems, which were solv...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 256, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...the beach and natural elements of Tria. Therefore it is necessary to protect the beach, n...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1822.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 361.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04709141274 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35889894354 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82591110791 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498614958449 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 540.9 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.4862779964 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8947368421 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.15789473684 5.70786347227 108% => 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 : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134811317205 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457479060495 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0446240997769 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0831324965052 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0561747873741 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.