The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten-year budget for the city of Calatrava.
"The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only one-half that of five years ago. Thus the number of students enrolled in our public schools will soon decrease dramatically, and we can safely reduce the funds budgeted for education during the next decade. At the same time, we can reduce funding for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities. As a result, we will have sufficient money to fund city facilities and programs used primarily by adults, since we can expect the adult population of the city to increase."
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 planning committee predicts increase in adult population in the Calatrava city and thus suggests allocation of extra budget for adult facilities and programs by cutting the budget allocated to the education and children recreational facilities. The argument of the committee is presumptuous and makes sweeping conclusion even when there is lack of evidence to come to any solid conclusion.
To begin with, the committee cites the declining birth rate of the Calatrava city and thus concludes that number of students enrolling to schools will decrease dramatically in next ten years. It is completely wrong on part of committee to consider that the trend of decline in birth rate will continuously follow for upcoming ten years. The committe should provide insightful scientific data that reports the population of the Calatrava city for atleast next ten years. It may happen that from next year, the birth of the city starts increasing and consequently more number of students need education facilities than before. In such scenario, If budget of the education is reduced, education system in the city will collapse and create a chaos for students. Also, the committee has completely overlooked many of the external factors like migration while coming to a conclusion. Hence, committee should provide information as such about the current influx rate of migration to the city and also provide information whether this rate is increasing or decreasing. Hence, without such evidence, any conclusion about future enrollment in schools of city is flawed.
Next, the committee also suggests that the funding for athletic activities and other recreational activites should be reduced due to expected decline in number of students enrolled to school and instead diverted to make adult facilities. First of all, it is not clear whether students enrollment to school will decrease or not, and thus to base any conclusion upon this faulty premise is a big mistake and thus makes argument flawed.
At last the committee predicts that adult population in the city will increase. This claim is not backed by any evidence. The committee must provide stastics reporting total number of adult population predicted for next ten years. But the evidence that it must furnish must contain population of adults acoording to age groups. For it is possible that the committees’ plan to increase funding for adult facilities will only be useful if most of the adults are old. Because, if most of the adults are middle aged it is quite possible that they will have children in near future and thus number of students enrolling to schools will automatically go up and more funding for education will be needed.
Hence, in conclusion, the committee must provide warranted data predicting future birth rate of city for at least ten years, expected influx migration population in next ten years, and projected population of adults as per their age group for atleast next ten years. Because, without these supporting evidence as of now, the argument of the committee if flawed and not persuasive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-12-19 | cbol | 50 | view |
| 2020-08-19 | atjl | 69 | view |
| 2021-12-28 | 5217232 | 81 | view |
| 2018-08-19 | kaitlinb9696 | 63 | view |
| 2020-12-15 | Wolf Salvatore | 55 | view |
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr. Karp, an anthropologist."Twenty years ago, Dr. Field, a noted anthropologist, visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rat 58
- The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten year budget for the city of Calatrava The birthrate in our city is declining in fact last year s birthrate was only one half that of five years ago Thus the number of students enroll 80
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis."Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard ho 50
- In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County recently lowered its speed limit from 55 miles per hour to 45 on all major county roads. But the 55 mph limit should be restored, because this safety effort has failed. Most drivers are exceeding the 40
- It is more harmful to compromise one's own beliefs than to adhere to them. 80
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...committee if flawed and not persuasive.
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'at least', 'in conclusion', 'first of all', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.2734082397 0.25644967241 107% => OK
Verbs: 0.149812734082 0.15541462614 96% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0880149812734 0.0836205057962 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0486891385768 0.0520304965353 94% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0149812734082 0.0272364105082 55% => OK
Prepositions: 0.157303370787 0.125424944231 125% => OK
Participles: 0.0468164794007 0.0416121511921 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76628699704 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0299625468165 0.026700313972 112% => OK
Particles: 0.00187265917603 0.001811407834 103% => OK
Determiners: 0.0823970037453 0.113004496875 73% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0318352059925 0.0255425247493 125% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00374531835206 0.0127820249294 29% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3078.0 2731.13054187 113% => OK
No of words: 496.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.20564516129 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.399193548387 0.378187486979 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.3125 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.243951612903 0.208842608468 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.163306451613 0.135150697306 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76628699704 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.411290322581 0.469332199767 88% => OK
Word variations: 46.3920142044 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.8 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7536169099 57.7814097925 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.9 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.75 0.724660767414 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 56.05 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 2.23684210526 1.8405768891 122% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.517216188449 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.13624410041 0.135418324435 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0949527873223 0.0829849096947 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.579531785846 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.160289257718 0.147661913831 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.243113638052 0.193483328276 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.096639959294 0.0970749176394 100% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.431795393274 0.42659136922 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0680715065204 0.0774707102158 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.363937199089 0.312017818177 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110690087723 0.0698173142475 159% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the performance of average users. 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 to cover all aspects.