"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."
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 author of the argument purportedly highlights that the city commission should limit its membership because they are non-residents and are not able to understand the difficulties of Oak City and address them properly. Indeed, residents of this city should take the responsibility of Oak City. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which more well-established evidence should be given.
First, the author contends that only citizens of this city could understand how the limited budget could be used. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since there is no sufficient evidence to support if citizens of Oak city are able to make a right decision for the budget. One point that should be considered is that the author does not provide any information about citizen whether they are knowledgeable or not. There is a possibility that these residents do not have the ability to make sound decisions due to the paucity of experience and information. What if they aggravate the situation? What if they could not come up with an objective decision? It is important to say that maybe they just want to find a decent job in the committee, who knows?
The author also points out that in a meeting they did not come to an agreement with membership because of their foolish objections. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects due to the paucity of evidence that would consolidate the premise the otherwise. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that the author does not provide anything about the meeting and it contends. Indeed, maybe the ideas of citizens were not logical or maybe because of limited budget their ideas were impossible to do. Moreover, maybe citizen in the meeting offer suggestions for the sake of their own personal goals, who knows?
Finally, as set forth by the author the membership are not eligible to work in this city because they do not live in Oak City and could not understand the problems. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled evidence to support if living areas could help to the understanding of problems. One point that should be considered is that we all know that people spend most of their time at their work. So, they certainly have enough knowledge of their surrounding areas and appreciate different trials and tribulations. The author does not show any information about membership's living condition. Maybe they do not live in a better environment with better condition. What if they are experiencing a worse situation in their living areas?
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some evidence having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of each premise.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | Sagar1234567890 | 74 | view |
| 2023-07-20 | TiOluwani97 | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-28 | nipuntestbig | 78 | view |
| 2022-07-05 | Vincent Samuel | 60 | view |
| 2022-07-05 | Naveena0 | 58 | view |
- The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago Furthermore there has been 66
- In order to become well-rounded individuals, all college students should be required to take courses in which they read poetry, novels, mythology, and other types of imaginative literature.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agre 66
- TPO 10 3
- technology has made children less creative than children in the past Do you agree or disagree 64
- Never never give up, means to keep trying and never stop working for your goals. Do you agree or disagree? 70
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
what is 'membership'? it is not clear.
----------------------
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: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2319 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.811 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.695 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 148 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 117 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.205 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.542 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.284 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 210, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2375.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92738589212 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76131102694 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446058091286 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 747.0 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.781833339 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.9583333333 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0833333333 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.29166666667 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174434045516 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508746848161 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0603501310527 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.098597175498 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.059988394016 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.58 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.