The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting the supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county. Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
As stated in the argument that the council of Maple County is concerned about the county’s becoming overdeveloped, and debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. However, there are major splits in this line of reasoning.
Firstly, the council has not provided any data for it being overdeveloped, there is no evidence that can prove that county’s becoming overdeveloped. The council is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development but the council has not taken into account to what extent will it prevent the development? Is the proposed measure enough to prevent the development? The argument states that council is concerned with restriction by limiting the supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the pricing, but there is no statistics of previous prices of housing and by how much percent can the increment be observed. That is, there is no data to define “increment” in housing.
Secondly, proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago but it did not mention the terms and conditions of that measure completely. It says the housing prices increased only modestly but there is no figure provided to support the Chestnut County measure. There can be a difference in population of Maple and Chestnut County, there may be differences in the rate of developing of both the county. The proponents did not take into account any of these factors before supporting the measure.
Thirdly, opponents of the measure state that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than double. Opponents did not take into account the factors that can compare Maple and Pine county. Nothing has been mentioned regarding the purpose of restricting the development in Pine county. There is a high possibility that the purpose of Maple and Pine county does not match for restricting development of residential housing. No figure is provided to show the significant increase in the prices.
In summary, the given argument falls short in many aspects. The proponents and opponents have not considered the relevant factors for supporting and denying respectively the proposal to restrict the development. If they would have considered some facts and figures of the other two county, they could have drawn a better conclusion. Additionally, the conclusion can also not be drawn just by considering the examples of two county. They should have referred more county in order to deduce a conclusion. Most importantly, whatever the two counties have done, they have done 10 years and 15 years ago. Within a large span of 10 to 15 years, the world changed a lot and the factors may not remain the same for any 2 counties. The predictions made by Maple council that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices is unconvincing because of the flaws mentioned above. Hence, the council’s argument remains flawed.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-14 | Anish Sapkota | 66 | view |
| 2023-01-02 | leonor | 68 | view |
| 2022-12-19 | Junu93 | 52 | view |
| 2022-10-21 | zanzendegi | 78 | view |
| 2022-10-07 | nafisasadafprova | 74 | view |
- The council of Maple County concerned about the county s becoming overdeveloped is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county But the council is also concerned that such a restriction by limiting the 58
- 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 have begun to assign higher grades in their classes and overall student 54
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2514 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.038 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.76 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.96 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.969 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.487 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 221, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had considered'?
Suggestion: had considered
...al to restrict the development. If they would have considered some facts and figures of the other two...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2587.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18436873747 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89786904283 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432865731463 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.7286281905 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.48 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.96 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.44 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375816967321 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101619288042 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.140141650057 0.0701772020484 200% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.259055581525 0.128457276422 202% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.170565056735 0.0628817314937 271% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.