The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
"The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificient bird population"
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Environmental protection group petition to the Youngtown residents seems to be reasonable from their point of view, but lacks the depth and did not address the underlying concerns all communities face whether to choose the development and growth in the community or preserve the environment. There is no easy way to decide one against the other. Economic growth and development are so essential for the community's survival without which community won’t be able to afford the cost of protecting the environment.
As Youngtown resident community made that decision to permit the smith corporation to develop the land, asking them to repeal it is unwise. Petitioners failed to justify why small area developed will have disastrous consequences to the bird population. Obviously the property developers don't want to drive the birds away, which are the main attraction of the area. Smith Corporation made promise to preserve the sanctuary; there is no reason to believe otherwise. Residents and town authorities can monitor that promise.
The petition failed to justify why building hotel in a tourist area is disastrous to the development of Youngtown community? This will bring in more tourists and additional tax revenue in to the community which will enable them to protect the environment better. This will bring additional jobs to the community which is even better. Petitioners argument, this development is disastrous to the community is unfounded.
As per the petition only small percentage of the land will be sold to the corporation. Do the petitioners think all the birds live in that small area. The petition lacks supporting evidence why they think this is disastrous for the birds. There is no evidence, because of human activity birds will not be staying in a place. Environmental group can request monitoring of the promises smith corporation made to keep the bird sanctuary.
The petition failed to justify their request for not selling the land to Smith Corporation. Its thinking new business activity disastrous to the community lacks depth of analysis. It has only one valid reason their concern for preserving the bird sanctuary. There are additional steps community, smith corporation can take to address them.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 357 350
No. of Characters: 1845 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.347 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.872 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 126 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 109 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.672 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.095 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.104 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5