All students should be required to take the driver's education course at Centerville High School. In the past two years, several accidents in and around Centerville have involved teenage drivers. Since a number of parents in Centerville have complained that they are too busy to teach their teenagers to drive, some other instruction is necessary to ensure that these teenagers are safe drivers. Although there are two driving schools in Centerville, parents on a tight budget cannot afford to pay for driving instruction. Therefore an effective and mandatory program sponsored by the high school is the only solution to this serious problem.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of the article assumes that the driver's education course at Centerville high School is an effective way to address the series problem about the car accident. However, this assumption cannot be accepted as it stands, it rests on a number of premises all of which can be challenged in one way or another.
A threshold presumption is that the several drivers of car accidents involved near the Centerville are the teenagers. However, there is a vague term of several. There is no lucid evidence that what is the increment of the accident and the teenagers’' population. If there is an enhance of 20 percent in the juvenile population, on the other hand, the number of car accidents related to the teenage has 10 percent incline; all in all, there is a decrease in the quantity of accident rather than the increase. Besides, if there is an increased percent, as long as, there is no clue that the chief blame for the crash is the teenager driver. It is an abortive assumption. Maybe, there is bad paving in the road, or there is no restricted rule about the driving in the Centerville. Each of these cases presents a scenario in which the teenagers are not the primer reason of the incidents.
Second, the argument claims that there are some complaints from the parents about their busy schedule which prevents them from teaching the driving to their children. While there is no cogent evidence that these some parents cover the majority of the families, the necessity of the driving instruction is a facial requirement. Maybe these some is the twenty percent of the parents. As a result, the investment of the extra instructor for the driving will be money consuming. This assumption could have been much fortified if it explicitly stated the numeric base of these complains. Otherwise, it is a weak reason for the instruction demand.
Finally, the author posits another shaky hypothesis, as the text mentioned the school would be monetary sponsored of this training course; thus, it is affordable to tight budget of the families. However, it cannot be accepted as it is; since there is no finance statistic to depict that how the school will support this program. For instance, they can do this monetary advocacy by the increasing the school tuitions and fees. Thereby the driving instruction budget will be supported by the parents indirectly. The argument would have been stronger had to provide economic information regarding the budget of the school, which is capable of supporting the program without the additional and indirect forces on the family.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned to the ratio of increment in the teenage crashes; moreover, most of the families are busy, and the course supported by the school independently. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-07 | Seonghun | 52 | view |
| 2019-12-25 | ken10091995 | 43 | view |
| 2019-09-24 | 08sandip | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-23 | Raian Islam | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-11 | havagoodone | 63 | view |
- tpo39 3
- It has recently been announced that a new movie theater may be built in your neighborhood. Do you support or oppose this plan? Why? Use reasons and details to support your answer. 70
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoni 50
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?It is better to have broad knowledge of many academic subjects than to specialize in one specific subject. 83
- tpo23 86
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 44, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'drivers'' or 'driver's'?
Suggestion: drivers'; driver's
... author of the article assumes that the drivers education course at Centerville high Sc...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 280, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...teenagers' population. If there is an enhance of 20 percent in the juvenile populatio...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'while', 'for instance', 'as a result', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.22965641953 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.137432188065 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0687160940325 0.0836205057962 82% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0397830018083 0.0520304965353 76% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0235081374322 0.0272364105082 86% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126582278481 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0361663652803 0.0416121511921 87% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.88413883376 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0144665461121 0.026700313972 54% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.186256781193 0.113004496875 165% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0198915009042 0.0255425247493 78% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0108499095841 0.0127820249294 85% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2979.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 493.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04259634888 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.377281947262 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.310344827586 0.287650121315 108% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223123732252 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.131845841785 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88413883376 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478701825558 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 55.2310668191 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 20.5416666667 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.8146973144 57.7814097925 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.125 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5416666667 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.724660767414 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 51.5761494253 51.9672348444 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.95495495495 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345736544552 0.441005458295 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.140159655589 0.135418324435 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0792681113776 0.0829849096947 96% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.603344297753 0.58762219726 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.155169216928 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.146247231265 0.193483328276 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0747658713555 0.0970749176394 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.603083153197 0.42659136922 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0617321160988 0.0774707102158 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256980283217 0.312017818177 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442373266172 0.0698173142475 63% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.87684729064 218% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.