The argument claims that the state legislature need not consider the protest of 200 students, who travelled to the state capitol building, to demonstrate against the proposed cuts in funding of their college programs. The line of reasoning is that only 200 of the possible 12,000 students travelled to the state capitol, consequently the small group were not representative. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. In addition, the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which it could be evaluated. Also, the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the 12,000 students who did not join the protest are not interested in their education. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated. As the argument already reveals, the remaining students either stayed at the campus or left for winter break. These circumstances are not sufficient evidence to conclude that the students are not concerned about their education. For example, the students could be concerned about their education, but because of an exam they could not join the other 200 students. And the students, who left for winter break, maybe had already planned their holidays before the protest was announced and therefore, they could not postpone their trip. In addition, factors such as the travel time or the ticket prices could be responsible for the small number of participants. Without further information it cannot be concluded that the 12,000 students are not interested in their education. The argument could have been much clearer if it stated supporting information.
Second, the argument assumes that the power of a protesting group depends on its size. This is again a very weak and unconvincing argument, as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the group size and their representativeness. To illustrate, many historic events have shown that it sometimes takes only a single person to influence and control most of a population. Also, if the protest is covered by the media and appears in the news, it would definitely be representative, although only 200 students were part of it. In addition, the argument does not provide any supporting evidence, which supports its claim. If the argument had provided the evidence, then the argument would have been more convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that the state legislature need not consider the protest of 200 students. This is claim is also very weak and unconvincing. As the argument cannot substantiate that the students are not representative, it is wrong to conclude that the state legislature should not need to consider protest. Also, the argument does not provide data, that the protest is only limited to the Waymarsh State College (WSC). Therefore, students from other state colleges might also join the students from WSC, with the consequence that the final group is greater than the author assumes. Without convincing answers to these questions and supporting data, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
- This past winter 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest againstproposed cuts in funding for various state college programs The other 12 000 Waymarsh students evidently weren tso concerned about their 68
- Cafe 16
- The producers of the forthcoming movie 3003 will be most likely to maximize their profits if they are willing to pay Robin Good several million dollars to star in it even though that amount is far more than any other person involved with the movie will ma 79
- The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper The owners of the Cumquat Caf evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location as can
- Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies we have further learned that each of 70
e-rater score report
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: 29 15
No. of Words: 541 350
No. of Characters: 2780 1500
No. of Different Words: 230 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.823 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.139 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.806 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 170 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: 18.655 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.676 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.621 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.456 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 40.0 16.3942115768 244% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2858.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 541.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28280961183 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9268048097 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436229205176 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 866.7 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.8595977229 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.5517241379 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6551724138 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.62068965517 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.320472999966 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0876408533047 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0837233369402 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172142913577 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112374795349 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.