Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. According to the Leeville Chamber of Commerce, these facts can be attributed to the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
In the given prompt, the author concludes that workers of Leevile take fewer sick leaves than Masonton due to healt benefitsofthe relatively relaxed pace of life. The author arrives at this conclusion based on the fact that diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leevile than in Masonton. However, while the conclusion drawn by the author might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated,weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. Before we could determine to accept or reject the claim, these assumptions must be addressed.
First, the author solely attributes the health conditions to the fewer sick days by the workers of Leevile. The authors fails to take cognizance of other factors that might lead to people opting for sick levaes. All of us know that rather than taking unpaid leave, sick leaves are preferred. It is possible that citizens of Maonton might have numerous personal reasons that urge them to opt for sick leaves. Most people in cities have other engagements or priorities to attend. For example, a worker in a city is more likely to take sick leave to attend his/her child's annual day. It is highly likely that people of small town are more limited in financial constraints, thus limiting them on the liberity to take such leaves. If the above is true, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument does not hold water.
Furthermore, the author assumes that the small town of Leevile is comparable to the large city of Masonton. Altough, they are just 50 miles apart, it is probable that both the locations are distinctly different. And the comparison is digressing. Perhaps, Leevile is much sparesly populated than Masonton, thus, leading to low levels of pollutions. This could provide much better environment to the people of Leevile than the city of Masonton. It is also possible that that climatic conitions are complementary. Leevile would be prone to severe chilly winters than Masonton. The climate is also a considerable factor to one's health. Other factors that contribute to health include the nature of work, health facilities, health awareness, etc. If either of the above has meit, then the argument is significantly flawed.
Finally, the authors fails to furnish the report that attribute the less diagnosis of stress-related illness in Leevile. It is unclear, however, the scope and validity of the report. It is possible that the sample would not have been the representative of the total population of Leevile. Unless the author provides us with the statistical data and also methodoly used in conducting this survey, we cannot verify the validity and reliability of the report. If the above is warranted, then the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. Also, the author fails to develop an effective and plausible analogy between the sick days and stress free lifes of the people of the two cities. If the author is able to address the concerns stated above and perhaps provide peices of evidence to bolster his claim, it will be possible for us to fully evaluate the viability of the argument whether to attribute the reclutance to take sick leaves to the stress free lifes of workers of Leevile than the workers of Masonton.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 553 350
No. of Characters: 2736 1500
No. of Different Words: 255 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.849 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.948 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.693 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.069 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.541 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.586 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.268 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.447 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 455, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , weakens
...d assumptions that, if not substantiated,weakens the persuasiveness of the argument. Bef...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 121, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'fail'.
Suggestion: fail
... by the workers of Leevile. The authors fails to take cognizance of other factors tha...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 644, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...at people of small town are more limited in financial constraints, thus limiting ...
^^
Line 5, column 620, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...limate is also a considerable factor to ones health. Other factors that contribute t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2810.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0998185118 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84768813305 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473684210526 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 889.2 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.4569816665 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.6666666667 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3666666667 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4 5.70786347227 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 6.88822355289 276% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.309200329492 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0719308903506 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0834323268439 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164339511095 0.128457276422 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626393178779 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => 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: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 98.500998004 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.