The Fern County Council made the right decision when it unanimously voted to convert the Northside branch of the county library system into a computer-skills training facility for public use. The converted facility will fill what is certain, based on nati

Essay topics:

The Fern County Council made the right decision when it unanimously voted to convert the Northside branch of the county library system into a computer-skills training facility for public use. The converted facility will fill what is certain, based on national trends, to be a growing need among county residents for training in computer skills. And since our library system boasts more volumes per resident than any other system in the state, the remaining branches will adequately serve the future needs of Fern County residents."

This editorial argues that the fern county Council’s decision to convert a library branch to a computer-skill training facility was correct. However, it’s author doesn’t offer sufficient evidence to allow a proper evaluation of the argument’s reasoning. There are several assumptions on which the argument rests weakly. First, the author assumes that county residents are not already proficient in computer skills and still majority of them need training. Secondly, no information is provided on the existing alternatives of providing computer training. Finally, large number of books per capita doesn’t prove that the supply will be adequate in the future. In the rest of my essay, I detail each of these flaws which might weaken the argument.

The first loophole has to do with the claim that there is “certain” to be growing need in Fern Country for computer-skill training. The author provides no specific evidence that the county conforms to the cited trend. Without any concrete evidence, it’s entirely possible that most of the county people are already proficient in computer skills. Of course, its also possible that a large and growing number of population of County consists of children and old aged people or unemployed workers who are in need of computer training. In any case, more information is needed to determine the extent to which Fern County resident actually need and would use Northside computer facility.

Another flaw in the argument involves the assumptions that there are no alternative means of providing computer training in the County. Perhaps, certain local businesses are already providing computer training facility to the general public. In that case, it would be useful to know whether the existing facility are sufficient to meet the anticipated demands and whether these alternatives are affordable for most county residents. Or, maybe the county residents are willing to teach themselves through online courses, books etc—in which case it would be useful to know the extent to which affordable Internet access is available to Fern County households. If it turns out the county residents can easily obtain computer skills through means such as these, then converting Norhtside branch might not be sensible.

Finally, the author doesn’t offer any convincing data to support the argument that a greater number of books per capita will suffice the needs of future. We need to know how many books per capita do the store possess and is this number large enough that it will fulfill the needs of the residents when the population of County increases in future. Also, a full assessment of whether the proposed plan is practical or not, would require knowledge about whether the remaining branches provide adequate self-space to accommodate the books from the Northside branch. This would require detailed information about the current inventory and the anticipated needs of Fern County residents. If it is found that other branches doesn’t have enough space to accommodate more books and that the Fern county people are in needs of new books then the author’s conclusion will be unwarranted.

In sum, a proper evaluation of the author’s argument requires more information about the current and anticipated demand for computer-skill traininig in Fern County and about the adequacy of the library current stack to meet the interest and preferences of countys residents.

Votes
Average: 8.9 (3 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2019-11-04 ramsay 59 view
2019-11-03 ramsay 23 view
2019-10-01 Navis 41 view
2019-07-13 Meghpatel 69 view
2019-06-03 AthKar 66 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user plant2311 :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 228, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...iding computer training facility to the general public. In that case, it would be useful to kn...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 342, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...when the population of County increases in future. Also, a full assessment of whether th...
^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, as to, of course, such as, in any case

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2926.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 541.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40850277264 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9206088102 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432532347505 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 911.7 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5168372987 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.217391304 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5217391304 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.34782608696 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269027023785 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.088336136104 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0829285202864 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16838682814 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0481049102804 0.0628817314937 77% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.39 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- OK
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 546 350
No. of Characters: 2807 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.834 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.141 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.678 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.739 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.527 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5