The following was a memorandum by the campaign manger for a state senate candidate:
“Contributers to nearly every major blog in the state, both democratic and republican, agree that a proposal to increase
tolls on the major highways going through our state is a good thing. They don’t all agree that the increased revenue should go towards the same thing Some say we need more technology in the schools, others favor subsidizing insurance for the unemployed and independent contractors, and some say it should just be used to cut income tax. However, they all agree that the tolls should go up. Certainly this will cause more commuters to take public transportation, encourage businesses to ship by rail rather than truck, and save on road maintenance fees. Our chief competitor, who accepts major contributions from the trucking companies, opposes the toll increase. We should, therefore, come out strongly in favor of it.”
The author of the memorandum issues a number of arguments in favour of the claim. However, these arguments are insubstantial and presents a number of questions that need to answered in order to strengthen the case presented. Additional information regarding the index of increase in revenue and the validity of the claim need to examined inorder to determine whether the suggestion will provide the predicted result.
Firstly, the conclusion is based on the premise that all major blogs support the increase in tolls on major highways. However, the no assurance is provided on the precision and integrity of this premise. It is possible that these major bloggers were bribed to support the cause. Alternatively, only selected major blogs might have been considered while analyzing the situation. Also, a greater portion the supporting democratic and republican bloggers might have been considered while surveying. Hence, it is unsafe to entirely believe in this evidence without knowing additional information related to the ratio of supporters to non-supporters and the number of blogs considered.
Secondly, considering only blogs are the source to support such a drastic action is not justifiable. The bloggers cannot be a representation of the entire population of the state. Also, even thought the bloggers support for an increase in revenue, it is not necessary that they expect a huge increase. Since no mention about the index is mentioned, the support of the bloggers can be assumed to be one without proper knowledge on the cause. The bloggers might expect a much lesser increase than the once the government might present. This lack of clarity in the evidence provided makes the conclusion unsound.
Thirdly, the author states that an increase in tolls would promote certain events like greater public transport utilization and decrease road maintenance fees. However, this brings forward many questions. Will majority of the public prefer public transportation over increased toll rates? There is the possibility that the public might divert to highways with lesser tolls rather than use public transport. Also, the public transportation might not be accessible in all regions at all times. It is also not necessary that the increase in toll rates could save road maintenance costs. What revenue it saves on road maintenance could be put into use for improving public transport or introducing toll booths. Also the author states that the competitor opposes toll increase as it receives major contributions from trucking companies. However, this claim is not substantiated with proper evidence and can be viewed as a biased opinion.
To sum, the author does not provide strong evidence to support his claim and hence the arguments provided are unconvincing thereby rushing into an unjustifiable conclusion. Therefore, additional information regarding the situation at hand needs to analyzed inorder to arrive at a sound and solid conclusion.
- The following appeared in an internal memo circulated amongst the partners of a small design firm:“We, the four partners of Max Design, have made the company what it is. When we are hired by a client, it is our taste andstyle that the client is paying f 70
- 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. 50
- The following appeared in a report to the board of a company that produces men’s sporting apparel:“While national television advertising is increasingly expensive, it would cost roughly the same amount to reach the samenumber of people by buying print 66
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of video rental stores."In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten video rental stores. Since we are famou 83
- One should not expect respect for disregarding the opinions of others Only when every point of view is taken into consideration should people take action in the world 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 418, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...tion will provide the predicted result. Firstly, the conclusion is based on the ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 708, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...c transport or introducing toll booths. Also the author states that the competitor o...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'thirdly', 'while']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.250988142292 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.167984189723 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0869565217391 0.0836205057962 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0592885375494 0.0520304965353 114% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0158102766798 0.0272364105082 58% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116600790514 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0533596837945 0.0416121511921 128% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.92374079611 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0296442687747 0.026700313972 111% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.134387351779 0.113004496875 119% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0256916996047 0.0255425247493 101% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00395256916996 0.0127820249294 31% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2965.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 463.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.40388768898 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.431965442765 0.378187486979 114% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.330453563715 0.287650121315 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.252699784017 0.208842608468 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.157667386609 0.135150697306 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92374079611 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 207.018472906 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475161987041 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 53.6375734043 52.1807786196 103% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 17.8076923077 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6081567678 57.7814097925 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.038461538 141.986410481 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8076923077 23.2022227129 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 50.8530486792 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.73170731707 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423882102799 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.12529159567 0.135418324435 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0873698056055 0.0829849096947 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.529852767666 0.58762219726 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155866139808 0.147661913831 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.165677480414 0.193483328276 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0838469617079 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.400365481729 0.42659136922 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.144465005872 0.0774707102158 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.295126492274 0.312017818177 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659382678077 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.33743842365 216% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 18.0 6.46551724138 278% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 24.0 14.657635468 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.