The following is an excerpt from a letter to the editor of the Billington Bugle:
There is no possible downside to the community in bringing the Grand Prix to Billington. Though it has not proved financially successful in other cities that have hosted the race, this will be not he case for Billington. The race's course will run through the economic center of downtown, and the organizers of the event have offered to pay to repave the downtown streets through which the race will run. Those streets are in such disrepair that having them repaired will be a tremendous boon to the city. Furthermore, though most downtown businesses (aside from restaurants and food vendors) will likely be shut down for three days, the influx of tourist dollars will be immense. Finally, the international prestige of hosting such a race will raise the city's profile significantly, generating new interest in doing business here."
Write a response in which you response what specific examples or evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and how those examples of evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author of a letter to the editor of the Billington Bugle speaks very positively of the benefits of bringing Grand Prix to Billington. She claims that there is no possible downside to bringing the Grand Prix, considering that the streets of the economic center of downtown will be repaved, there will be an influx in tourist dollars, and the city’s reputation will grow, generating business interested. The underlying assumptions behind these claims should be explored before any reader evaluates the argument made by the author.
The author begins by making a general claim of there being no possible downside to the hosting of the Grand Prix. This claim should be deconstructed for its validity in terms of time. Will there be no downsides overall, in the short-term, or in the long-term? The author should expand on whether there will be initial costs or hurdles that the city should prepare for in the short-term. If there are such short-term costs or hurdles, the city will need to evaluate whether they can afford them enough so that the long-term benefits are worth it. If the author expands her argument to claim to all time frames, evaluating the argument may be more straightforward that it seems.
The author goes on to claim that Billington will be the exception in a string of financially unsuccessful endeavors to host the Grand Prix. She should continue on with this train of thought to expand on the differences between Billingtown and other cities. Although she claims the benefits that Billington will experience, she does not expand on how Billington is different from other cities and attribute these differences to why Billingtown will be successful. The following questions should be asked before evaluating this assumption: Why were other cities not successful? Where their financial, social, political, etc. circumstances different? If indeed the author is able to expand on barriers that other cities faced that do not apply to Billington, her argument may be strengthened. If on the other hand, the author is unable to distinguish what is unique about Billington, her argument may weakened,
Finally, the author discusses how although most downtown businesses will be shut down for three days, there will be an immense influx of tourist dollars. The current assumption is that the influx of tourist dollars will make up for if not surpass any loss in profit by the downtown business owners. This assumption should be clarified for readers to better understand the author’s argument. Will the influx of tourist dollars be going directly to the downtown businesses who are expected to face a loss of profits, or elsewhere? If they are not going directly to downtown business owners, how will such business owners make up their profits in both the short and long-term? If the tourist dollars are expected to go to downtown business owners before or after the three day shut down, the author’s argument will be strengthened. If the transfer of wealth is not so direct, business owners and other readers may have more hesitations about the plan. Answering these questions will bring light to the distribution of wealth expected by bringing Grand Prix to Billington.
The author’s letter to the editor of the Billington Bugle is a passionate one, filled with promising hopes for improving the city of Billington. Before agreeing to the author’s reasons for such promising hopes, readers should question the author’s underlying assumptions. They should understand whether benefits will occur in the short-term or long-term, where wealth will be distributed, and the unique circumstances of Billington that will allow it to be financially successful compared to other cities which were not.
- The main reason we should study history is to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. Write a response in which you examine your own position on the statement. Explore the extent to which you either agree or disagree with it, and support yo 70
- The following is an excerpt from a letter to the editor of the Billington Bugle:There is no possible downside to the community in bringing the Grand Prix to Billington. Though it has not proved financially successful in other cities that have hosted the r 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 908, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t Billington, her argument may weakened, Finally, the author discusses how althou...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 830, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...author’s argument will be strengthened. If the transfer of wealth is not so direct...
^^
Line 9, column 469, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ton that will allow it to be financially successful compared to other cities whic...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'if', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232522796353 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.164133738602 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0775075987842 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.031914893617 0.0520304965353 61% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0258358662614 0.0272364105082 95% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127659574468 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0440729483283 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.84265689365 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0395136778116 0.026700313972 148% => OK
Particles: 0.00455927051672 0.001811407834 252% => OK
Determiners: 0.113981762918 0.113004496875 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.048632218845 0.0255425247493 190% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.016717325228 0.0127820249294 131% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3736.0 2731.13054187 137% => OK
No of words: 604.0 446.07635468 135% => OK
Chars per words: 6.18543046358 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95746018188 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.394039735099 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.288079470199 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.230132450331 0.208842608468 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.140728476821 0.135150697306 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84265689365 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 207.018472906 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.399006622517 0.469332199767 85% => OK
Word variations: 47.7610598248 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 22.3703703704 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.323307574 57.7814097925 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.37037037 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3703703704 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.259259259259 0.724660767414 36% => More Discourse Markers wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 51.1783173902 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.82191780822 1.8405768891 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.623715262078 0.441005458295 141% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.176730033503 0.135418324435 131% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.114666040154 0.0829849096947 138% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.542869416696 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.174183723752 0.147661913831 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.269463978453 0.193483328276 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.134786734948 0.0970749176394 139% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.484977669792 0.42659136922 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0648099168646 0.0774707102158 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.490021260341 0.312017818177 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631258427395 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.33743842365 216% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 16.0 6.46551724138 247% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 70.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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 to cover all aspects.