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 magnificent 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.
The given argument suggests that an environmental protection group has sent a petition to residents of Youngtown suggesting that the Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. In the petition several assumptions are made pertinent to the scenario which are further expounded below in detail.
The first stated assumption made is that the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for the area. The environmental protection group mentions that though only a small percentage of land will be sold to Smith, it will affect the area in harmful ways. It nowhere mentions how will it have a deleterious impact, nor does it discuss the ways in which this outcome can be mitigated. The petition straightaway gives the ultimatum that Smith Corporation's work on the land must be proscribed by the residents. If this assumption of pernicious consequences for the area is proven unwarranted, not only will it undermine the environmental protection group's status, but the residents will also cast their doubts as to why was the group deliberately against this move. Another implication would be that the area suffers a possible loss with what it could have gained in the form of revenue after the construction of the hotel.
The petition further adds that the company plans to build a small hotel on the land. This is followed by another accusation that though the corporation has promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. Here, the group simply excoriates a progressive mechanism of modifying the land without harming the sanctuary. It assumes that there will be nothing but unpropitious outcomes after the changes are made. It fails to consider the corporation's accommodations of preserving the sanctuary even after building the hotel.
In later part of the text it is mentioned that tourists flock this area primarily to see the magnificent bird population and in no circumstances would this sale benefit the community. Considering this we can assume that a probable reason behind Smith Corporation building a hotel here is to allow the tourists to experience the area and its birds more closely. If the environmental protection group continues its attack with the single motive that there is nothing but harm in this development then it is depriving the area of more tourists that might come because of stay facilities in the area. This indicates that if the count of tourists does not increase then the area would find a shortage in revenue generated which will directly affect people's livelihood. Instead, if after the construction of the hotel, more tourists visit the place, then jobs would increase due to people working in the hotel and as tour guides for the sanctuary, and a favorable impact would also be seen on the revenue generated. It will also ensure that the sanctuary is maintained properly for tourist satisfaction, which will turn out to be salubrious for the wildlife existing there.
Hence, as we have examined the environmental protection group's petition that slanders the Smith Corporation and its work pertinent to construction at the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. It fails to prove the assumptions made which are summarized below:
1. The proposed development will have disastrous consequences for the area.
2. The building of small hotel on the land will harm the sanctuary.
3. There is no circumstances under which this sale will benefit the community.
Therefore, the residents of Youngtown must deliberate carefully before considering anything indicated by the petition and make a decision that supports growth and development of the area without affecting the sanctuary in any possible way.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-02 | Harshali_15 | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-23 | rohitx71 | 69 | view |
| 2019-10-05 | calidriver25 | 69 | view |
| 2019-09-26 | knagda007 | 77 | view |
| 2019-04-24 | ShrutheeshIR | 55 | view |
- The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school:Last year, Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor, Swift Nutrition. This company serves low-fat, low-calorie meal 85
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor’s record of treating similarly afflicted patients. Through gaining such access, the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition.Write 66
- 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 23
- 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 es 89
- The following argument was made in a newspaper editorial:“The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangere 82
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
it doesn't need a s summary in the conclusion.
--------------------
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: 27 15
No. of Words: 610 350
No. of Characters: 3124 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.97 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.121 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.936 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 179 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 147 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 101 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.593 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.252 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.37 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.449 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 12, column 3, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'There are no circumstances'?
Suggestion: There are no circumstances
...n the land will harm the sanctuary. 3. There is no circumstances under which this sale will benefit the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, so, then, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3186.0 2260.96107784 141% => OK
No of words: 610.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22295081967 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96972615649 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96210047716 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418032786885 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 977.4 705.55239521 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.8999165275 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.44 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.2 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 9.0 5.15768463074 174% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.307042351662 0.218282227539 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0906054179822 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124050260305 0.0701772020484 177% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148771141578 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141412879174 0.0628817314937 225% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.