"The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
"The Smith Corporation shouldn't 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 magnificent bird population."" -
Write a response in which you examine the started 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.
The following argument is fallacious on numerous aspects which makes numerous stated and unstated assumptions starting from considering development leading to disastrous consequenses and concluding by assumption no benefit to their community or sanctury.
Firstly, argument says Smith corporation propsed development can cause disastrous consequesnces. There are chances that community members in the name of Environmental group , they are trying to target Smith corporation. It is mentioned that a small part of land is being given to Smith Corporation, it is not explained how it can cause disastrous effects? Disastrous is a kind of extreme word to use before getting into practical development stages. Argument states that company tries to build a small hotel on the land. Also, it says sanctuary hosts for 300 bird species, then how will that be related. Instead having a hotel may evntually help few bird species. Bird species may get into habit of accessing hotel for food resources and shelter.
Argument assumes too extreme that Smith corporation plans will harm the sanctuary. But there are no valid reasons anywhere in the argument. As said earlier, there are chances a group of residents have planned to sign a petition in the name of Environmental protection group. There may be some competition these Smith Corporation plans may raise in terms of business. For example, as said Smith Corporation are trying to open a hotel in the land alloted. But this action may challenge already build hotels in sanctuary for tourists thus there are chances of competition arising. Also, there may be some illegal activities going on by the community people within the bird sanctuary. It may be difficult for them to continue if Smith corporation get inside sanctuary.
Finally, there is a huge assumption that Simth corporation doesn't help the local community people if they develop the intended plan. It is also been said that sanctuary is maily visited by tourists. Developing a small land as a hotel surely would help tourists. It may also help local community in basic needs. There may be lack of tourists because of insufficient facilities within the sanctuary, which will get resolved if Smith corporation develpos the land. Inturn there would be new competition arise and would improve facilities within the sanctuary. Thus helping their community to involve positively in outer world too.
To summarize, the argument lacks numerous points to prove the conclusion it derives. It is made up of numerous assumptions, both stated and unstated which eventually proves argument as insufficient information to conclude.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017-05-29 | jcsilv | 66 | view |
| 2016-08-06 | jessicamdesai | 83 | view |
| 2016-08-04 | shachand9 | 75 | view |
| 2016-07-05 | rajpatel9498 | 50 | view |
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 50
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist.“Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village r 41
- "The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:"The Smith Corporation shouldn't be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is esse 75
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 70
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 173, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...mbers in the name of Environmental group , they are trying to target Smith corpora...
^^
Line 3, column 605, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...species, then how will that be related. Instead having a hotel may evntually help few b...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 60, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... huge assumption that Simth corporation doesnt help the local community people if they...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'for example', 'kind of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.273127753304 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.185022026432 0.15541462614 119% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0726872246696 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0462555066079 0.0520304965353 89% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0308370044053 0.0272364105082 113% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116740088106 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0550660792952 0.0416121511921 132% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.91104380847 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0286343612335 0.026700313972 107% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0748898678414 0.113004496875 66% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0374449339207 0.0255425247493 147% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.011013215859 0.0127820249294 86% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2632.0 2731.13054187 96% => OK
No of words: 417.0 446.07635468 93% => OK
Chars per words: 6.31175059952 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5189133491 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.369304556355 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314148681055 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.251798561151 0.208842608468 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.172661870504 0.135150697306 128% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91104380847 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 207.018472906 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486810551559 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 53.5212500047 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0384615385 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.4937972124 57.7814097925 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.230769231 141.986410481 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0384615385 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.461538461538 0.724660767414 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 47.453329644 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 1.6974789916 1.8405768891 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390724008779 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.102611240828 0.135418324435 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0603160402909 0.0829849096947 73% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.441248947486 0.58762219726 75% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.161508062921 0.147661913831 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124970476503 0.193483328276 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.078977162957 0.0970749176394 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.287543135752 0.42659136922 67% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.126096196811 0.0774707102158 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237959275903 0.312017818177 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0625428071451 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.