"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
The author talks about the Oak City and how the committee will take the decision on how they can use the city’s limited budget in the best way. The author says that the first meeting was not successful because of many objections, and he describes that objection by “foolish.” The argument that the author mentions is not clear enough and has many weaknesses and hidden holes. There is also a lack of information in many parts of the case.
First of all, the author concludes that It is better to limit the number of membership in the committee to contain just Oak’s residents, but that may have adverse effects on the city. They have to study the issue from different angles, not just from one point of view. If the city is an attractive city for tourists, they have to use part of the budget to help to improve the tourism but it the decision is related only to the residents, they may not take care about travel at all and prefer to use the money for something else they find useful.
Second, the author claims that just Oak City residents pay city taxes. What about businesspeople who have factories or companies in the city but they live outside the enterprise?. We all know that businesses’ and facilities’ owners have to pay taxes too. Moreover, maybe there are some workers live outside the city, but they work in the city. They have the right to say their opinion about the best way of using the budget. They may provide some suggestions that help foreign people when they visit the city.Furthermore, the author does not give any information about the “foolish objections” which might seem realistic for other people.
Finally, somebody might refute what I mentioned and insist that the best decision will take from the residents, and they are most careful about the city. We know that the every country has a law, and most of the countries’ law says that the committee has to contain different people from various groups of the countries to achieve the best decision for all teams, and that seems fair in most cases so, it is not possible to change the law for this instance and ban other committee from objection. It is right and better to study and case from different angles.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-12-05 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 69 | view |
| 2018-10-31 | york13468 | 66 | view |
| 2018-10-20 | Shrinivaschavhan0029 | 77 | view |
| 2018-06-09 | dshah6611 | 77 | view |
| 2018-04-15 | amirbahman | 62 | view |
- Do grades help students to learn? 75
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People are spending too much time on personal enjoyment-doing things they do to do-doing than doing things they should do. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
- Tpo 46 80
- Tpo2 60
- Describe your school what are the things that you like and dislike in it Give explanations to support your answer 90
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 520, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Furthermore
...foreign people when they visit the city.Furthermore, the author does not give any informati...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'as to', 'first of all', 'in most cases']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240534521158 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.135857461024 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0712694877506 0.0836205057962 85% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0467706013363 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0445434298441 0.0272364105082 164% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.113585746102 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.00445434298441 0.0416121511921 11% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.74362798708 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0311804008909 0.026700313972 117% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.120267260579 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0178173719376 0.0255425247493 70% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0178173719376 0.0127820249294 139% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2238.0 2731.13054187 82% => OK
No of words: 389.0 446.07635468 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.75321336761 6.12365571057 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44106776838 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.26735218509 0.378187486979 71% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.200514138817 0.287650121315 70% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.133676092545 0.208842608468 64% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.107969151671 0.135150697306 80% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74362798708 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473007712082 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 50.4279859238 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 25.9333333333 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.8694098941 57.7814097925 149% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.2 141.986410481 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9333333333 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.866666666667 0.724660767414 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 45.9847472151 51.9672348444 88% => OK
Elegance: 1.57843137255 1.8405768891 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.588566269944 0.441005458295 133% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150845909021 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0721516117777 0.0829849096947 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.615136744326 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.170298384208 0.147661913831 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.285995997114 0.193483328276 148% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.128312266056 0.0970749176394 132% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.499123003594 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0616306005578 0.0774707102158 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.467156473141 0.312017818177 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658668660271 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.