: The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council. "Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
In the given argument author concludes to the conclusion that space in landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted because of people’s strong commitment to recycling. The argument seems convincing and adequate but by close scrutiny we should understand there are so many flaws in the argument. To discuss all those flaws we must have to discuss all pros and cons of the above argument.
Firstly, during the past two years the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. But author fails give enough evidence to clarify this claim. We did not have any information about how much amount of garbage material these town resident were processing last two year. To strengthen this argument must have to provide enough evidence to above claim.
Secondly, Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Author fails to explain actual pickup charges of garbage. It is not plausible to associate of increasing the pickup charges and increased recycling material.
Thirdly, author in argument says that over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Author fails to explain the validity and credulity of the respondent recent survey. It may be possible that survey can be done in particular area only. On how many people this survey was done? It may be possible that only on very small number of people this was done. To strengthen this argument author must have to show fairness in survey by presenting evidence.
Therefore, by enlightening some flaws in the argument leads to strong and convincing argument.
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive. Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated 50
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field 40
- :theatre is extremely popular in the city of Thespiana: over 10,000 people attended its annual theatre festival last spring, and the highest-rated television program there is theatre highlights’ ,which is aired every weekday. Also a number of well-known t 75
- 'Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall st 49
- Following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc. A recent study of our customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which ensures that our socks are st 20
Sentence: But author fails give enough evidence to clarify this claim.
Description: A verb, present tense, 3rd person singular is not usually followed by a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to fails and give
Argument 1 -- NOT OK. Maybe the population will be increasing.
Argument 2 -- NOT OK. Maybe people like to pay more money even though the charges for pickup of other household garbage will double.
Argument 3 -- OK
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 287 350
No. of Characters: 1435 1500
No. of Different Words: 155 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.116 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.483 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 111 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 77 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.882 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.95 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.129 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5