The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis.
"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The given argument provides a recommendation that similar change-using the declining residential area on opposite side of the city for industrial use-can attain the same consequence that were achieved ten years ago in city of Transopolis near the freeway. However, this suggestion is rife with holes and assumptions, for which argument provides no evidences. To prove the veracity of the recommendation, these evidences need to be presented.
First of all, in order to link the expansion of industrial area with reduction in crime rate and proliferation of property tax revenue of the city, the argument must provide details of the study that proves the generality of this link. Currently, argument isn’t sufficed in doing so. There can be multiple possible reasons for the later change. We don’t know that. Increase in police protection in the area then or economy going up can be some possible reasons that can debunk the veracity of the argument’s claim. Also, even though the changes were attributed by the expansion of factories in the freeway ten years ago, no evidence proving the generality of the case is presented. Presently, in opposite side of the city, there may not be any crime whose rate can slump. We cannot generalize the ramification until we have a detailed description of current scenario of the opposite side of the city.
Basing on the implication that construction of factories could reduce crime rates and increase property tax revenue ten years ago, author of the argument needs to show evidences that nothing has been changed in the last ten years. For all conditions-economy, security-remaining the same, the argument can then be deemed for it’s recommendation. Without the aforementioned evidence, we would not know the extend to which the recommendation holds true. There can be possibility that economy isn’t in the right shape now as it was ten years ago. Therefore, expanding factories will do little or no good for the property tax revenue. Or maybe the police security now is thriving in the city unlike the ten years ago, when there was no security at all. In that case, expanding industries will have no effect on crime rate.
Also, the author assumes that people staying the declining residential area will be interested in moving to the nearby neighborhood. We don’t have any survey that specifies the people’s interest and also the living condition of the neighborhood. Without these evidences, author can’t correctly say that people in the declining residential area will be agreeing to move. Without them moving elsewhere, adapting residential area for industrial use is not possible, even if the above stated assumptions are proved true.
In summary, the author’s recommendation will only hold true if the aforementioned assumptions are proved by giving necessary evidences. If evidences are not presented, the argument will fall apart.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-09 | Samiksha Rana | 69 | view |
| 2019-01-27 | evanlu | 46 | view |
| 2018-12-20 | udayrade1206 | 66 | view |
| 2018-08-30 | heogogre | 63 | view |
| 2018-07-14 | nik.201094@gmail.com | 69 | view |
- Summarize the points made in the lecture you just heard, explaining how they cast doubt on points made in the reading.In 1939, David O Selznick produced a film of Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel, Gone with the Wind. The movie proved to 86
- Reading is more educational than watching television or movies 91
- Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent s 42
- "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 rather than by their own biological parents. However, my recent interviews with 53
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not exactly. need to argue this:
To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city.
argument 3 -- OK
---------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 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: 469 350
No. of Characters: 2361 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.654 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.034 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.981 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.542 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.201 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.542 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 406, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rementioned evidence, we would not know the extend to which the recommendation holds true....
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 365, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... in the declining residential area will be agreeing to move. Without them moving elsewhere,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, in summary, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2474.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 465.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32043010753 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64369019777 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13773242678 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483870967742 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 800.1 705.55239521 113% => 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: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 56.4147433202 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.083333333 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.375 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.375 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.193265925298 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0566310427282 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060341545868 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119107746179 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.063543291108 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.