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.
Because of the problematic overdeveloping of the county of Maple, the local council makes some researches and analysis to predict the possible results of a development-limiting measure. To do this, it considers the chances of an increase in the price of housing in the county, deriving this occurrence by comparison to other counties. It is evident, though, that the argument fails to furnish a strong reasoning chain to support the conclusions: in fact, a number of flaws and holes in the entire argument undermine its convincing power. In particular, some questions need to be answered to clear the connection between the Maple County and the other counties, either in space and time; at the same time, some words should have been spent about several terms that, after all, sound superficially as used in the argument.
First of all, as mentioned, there is an opaque use of the parallelism among different counties. In fact, we are given no specific information to locate the other two counties cited, that is, we do not know where Chestnut County and Pine County are. Is it to be deemed correct that these two counties are representative of a similar geo-economical situation to that of Maple County? It could be the case, for example, that the two counties saw different changes in the local housing prices because their economy followed a different path, maybe because they are crucially far away from Maple. They could have experienced, for instance, a rocketing up in the local industries income, thus resulting in a maximized value of local housing. We just cannot assume that because in those counties pricies went in a certain direction, than also Maple Counties housing will go through the same path.
Moreover, there is an undoubtedly wierd use of time comparisons. Look at the periods underlined by the council as germane to the argument: we read about a Chestnut County measure of ten years ago, immediately later compared to a similar measure adopted by Pine County fifteen years ago. It is not clear why they should be interesting to assess the validity of the present measure, nor the history of Chestnut and Maple economies is qualified. To what exstent is the present of Maple County comparable to the past of the ther two counties? Isn't it possible that ten years ago the restriction adopted in Pine County were motivated by totally different circumstances, like a momentous market crysis or, on the contrary, a terribly overdeveloping, much greater than the Maple one?
What is more, an inconsistent and substantially uncompelling use of a noticeable number of words has been done. For instance, how "similar" is the measure adopted in Chestnut County to that the Maple council is about to adopt? Then, the housing prices in Pine have "doubled", but what are the base numbers of the doubling? If for example, the initial prices were immaterial and totally irrelevant, the comparison would be uneffective to the aims of the council. Again, the same final conclusion has a incorrect superficiality: how "significant" is the expected increase in the prices of housing in Maple County? Of course, if it is proved to be high enough to be influent, then the argument would wind up being more cogent. Unfortunately, though, the term "significant" remains unqualified and the argument insufficiently sustained.
To sum up, the council tried to give an explanation for his prediction of the incresing in the housing price, but neglected to find out further data about some questions and assumptions that, if proved wrong, would dramatically weaken the argument itself. Indeed the council conclusion could hold true, namely, the prices could rise up in parallel to those of the other two counties, but we cannot just deeply trust the argument if we are not given the necessary information.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jenniferjack07 | 82 | view |
| 2020-01-23 | jason123 | 16 | view |
| 2019-12-19 | samramjam12345 | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-12 | nimesh94 | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-25 | cnegus | 63 | view |
- In business, education, and government, it is always appropriate to remain skeptical ofnew leaders until those leaders show that they are worthy of trust. 66
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 66
- Although innovations such as video, computers, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 66
- Leaders are created by the demands that are placed on them. 83
- The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority. 83
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 630 350
No. of Characters: 3084 1500
No. of Different Words: 286 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.01 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.895 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.854 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 173 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.54 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 664, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'industries'' or 'industry's'?
Suggestion: industries'; industry's
...r instance, a rocketing up in the local industries income, thus resulting in a maximized v...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 827, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...es pricies went in a certain direction, than also Maple Counties housing will go thr...
^^^^
Line 5, column 540, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: Isn't
...e to the past of the ther two counties? Isnt it possible that ten years ago the rest...
^^^^
Line 7, column 520, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...l. Again, the same final conclusion has a incorrect superficiality: how 'sig...
^
Line 9, column 257, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Indeed,
...ramatically weaken the argument itself. Indeed the council conclusion could hold true,...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, may, moreover, so, then, thus, after all, for example, for instance, in fact, in particular, of course, first of all, on the contrary, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 93.0 55.5748502994 167% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3224.0 2260.96107784 143% => OK
No of words: 629.0 441.139720559 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12559618442 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.00798087137 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1904791752 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 204.123752495 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476947535771 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 1024.2 705.55239521 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8454742132 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.333333333 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2083333333 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.15572277937 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0463690322408 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427336933914 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0895102331734 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0156701242884 0.0628817314937 25% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.69 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 98.500998004 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.