The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should
be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens
have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of
people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter
and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less
per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out
some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of
Rockingham."
The editorial claims that the Rockingham's century-old town hall should be demolished and a new building, which is larger and energy efficient, should be built in its place. I find the contention of editorial to be rife with many logical fallacies.
Firstly, the new building plan is given by some citizens who are not known, whether they have much expertise to assess the case that the old building has become obsolete and the city wants a new one. Furthermore, the complaint regarding the paucity of space should be made by the staff members who feel discomfort while working in the old building and not by some citizens who go there for a while.
Secondly, the claim that the old town is too small to accommodate the employees comfortably is vague. It is not mentioned in the editorial what is meant by too small. Perhaps, the allotted space for the worker is felicitous and the complaint is just the perception of these citizens or it is required to work in groups to complete the tasks, which is perceived by these citizens to consider the old building as congested space.
Thirdly, it is claimed that the new building would be larger and energy efficient. There is no proof given by the author to support that the space in the old building is small, except the perception of a few citizens. Perhaps, the building is large enough to accommodate its worker comfortably. Furthermore, no plan is suggested to make new building energy efficient. It may be possible that the new building will fail to provide an energy efficient system which would be more effective than the old building system.
Finally, it is claimed that some of the space is rented for other activities and rent is generated through them. It is not known that how much space would be left and would that left out space will be rented by a businessman who can give rent. It may be possible that the location of the site is far away from resident people and the free space will not be rented by anyone.
The author must clear what is meant by “ too small to accommodate employees comfortably. Moreover, the author should interview the employee whether they feel the workspace is small and a definite plan to make building more energy efficient should be described in detail in order to assert that new building will be more energy efficient.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 29, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...g system. Finally, it is claimed that some of the space is rented for other activities an...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.5258426966 184% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 11.3162921348 159% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 58.6224719101 70% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 12.9106741573 31% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1921.0 2235.4752809 86% => OK
No of words: 405.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74320987654 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.600305986 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 215.323595506 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.424691358025 0.4932671777 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 586.8 704.065955056 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59117977528 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 3.10617977528 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 20.2370786517 84% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.6646336795 60.3974514979 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.0 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8235294118 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52941176471 5.21951772744 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.107059321218 0.243740707755 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0408945742578 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0475604135025 0.0758088955206 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0675147997494 0.150359130593 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0521815625785 0.0667264976115 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 65.05 48.8420337079 133% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.1639044944 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.39 8.38706741573 88% => OK
difficult_words: 67.0 100.480337079 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.