The conclusion of argument Is that the Snith Corporation should not permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve.
For support the conclusion, the arguer cites that this sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in that area.
The arguer also points out that even if small percentage of the land will be sold to smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for area.
Although the company promise to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, arguer does not believe in their promise and show that it is harmful for society.
However, this argument suffer from several flaws and poor assumption, is therefore unpersuasive.
First of all, the arguer cites that sanctuary is essential to survival of 300 bird species without giving information about how much area actually use by birds in sanctuary.
Perhaps, it is possible that only half area of sanctuary is use for birds and other area is not used by anyone.
In this case arguer must require to give better information about the sanctuary and birds.
Secondly, arguer badly assume that even if small area of land is sell to company, it is dangerous for the development of area.
Here, it is possible that after the selling of land to company, the development of area increase and number of tourists are also increase.
So it is good for society.
Also, just because of small company it is possible that it do not affect any development of society.
So arguer require to give better evidence of consequences of selling the land to company.
Finally, arguer cannot believe in company's promise. It is possible that after giving promise they do not follow their promise.
The company want to build a small hotel on the land and then is also possible that number of tourists are increase and then it is helpful for sanctuary.
The arguer assume that most of tourists come to sanctuary to see the birds and it is possible that arguer's assumption is right.
But it is also possible that after build the hotel, tourists are more attract towards the sanctuary. In this case arguer take review of tourists and then give any conclusion.
So because of lack of information about tourists' will, this argument is unpersuasive.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument the arguer require to give better information and effect of company on sanctuary.
In order to better evaluate, the arguer give more evidence about the impact if, small land is sell to company.
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing."Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulty obtaining reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of 16
- 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
- "Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned wit 50
- To understand the most important characteristics of a society one must study its major cities Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In deve 82
- 32. The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Quiot Manufacturing.During the past year, Quiot Manufacturing had 30 percent more on-the-job accidents than at the nearby Panoply Industries plant, where the work shifts are one hour shorter th 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 69, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'permit'
Suggestion: permit
...s that the Snith Corporation should not permitted to develop the land that is now part of...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'giving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: giving
...yone. In this case arguer must require to give better information about the sanctuary ...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 130, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'increased'.
Suggestion: increased
...ncrease and number of tourists are also increase. So it is good for society. Also, jus...
^^^^^^^^
Line 15, column 19, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'giving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: giving
...elopment of society. So arguer require to give better evidence of consequences of sell...
^^^^^^^
Line 20, column 12, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'assumes'.
Suggestion: assumes
...t is helpful for sanctuary. The arguer assume that most of tourists come to sanctuary...
^^^^^^
Line 20, column 24, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'most of', you should use 'the' ('most of the tourists') or simply say ''most tourists''.
Suggestion: most of the tourists; most tourists
... for sanctuary. The arguer assume that most of tourists come to sanctuary to see the birds and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 20, column 100, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...o see the birds and it is possible that arguers assumption is right. But it is also po...
^^^^^^^
Line 25, column 105, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'giving'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: giving
...engthen the argument the arguer require to give better information and effect of compan...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2138.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 429.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98368298368 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65625258794 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.377622377622 0.468620217663 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 665.1 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.278748691 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.9565217391 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.652173913 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04347826087 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 20.0 5.15768463074 388% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.258275414222 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.077632585913 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0948718630363 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0887621294144 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0968323885402 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.85 8.32208582834 82% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.