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 housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
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 argument that comprehensive urban renewal program is considerable and feasible program is based on the interchanging substandard housing area with the new several factories. The author tried to convince the reader that The newly designed program beget the decreasing in crime rate and the enhancing property tax revenues for the entire city. While the line of reasoning is somewhat persuasive, it committed Prejudiced Statistics Fallacy, Hasty Generalization Fallacy, and Confusing Cause and Effect Fallacy. Therefore is logically not sound.
First of all, the argument commits Hasty Generalization Faulty. The author made the conclusion that decreasing in the rate of crime in near of the introduced program by constructed several factories. It is possible that crime decreasing is due to the absence of habitat near the highway and abandoned housing. So, the author should address more detailed program in the city.
Second, the author failed to address increasing property tax revenues for the entire city. When the arguer tried to prove that increasing tax revenues justify parallel act in areas where opposite of city, he committed an even more serious fallacy by Prejudiced Statistics Fallacy. Rather, the author should compare the specific area people bottom line is now within the past one.
Finally, the argument potentially assumed that new program is the only factor determines the decreasing in the crime rate and the enhancing in the tax income. Actually, it may be other factors that constitute the success of these Areas. For example, the police new severe schedule in that area in relation with crime decreasing, introduce tax new litigation in relation with enhancing tax income in the entire city, and so forth. Moreover, even if the success of a new program in those areas, it does not guarantee success in a new program in the opposite of the city.
In sum, the argument is neither sound nor convincing since it overlooks many possibilities that must be addressed to strengthen its statement. If it included the items described above, it may be more strong or persuasive.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-10-09 | Samiksha Rana | 69 | view |
| 2019-01-27 | evanlu | 46 | view |
| 2018-12-20 | udayrade1206 | 66 | view |
| 2018-08-30 | heogogre | 63 | view |
| 2018-07-14 | nik.201094@gmail.com | 69 | view |
- Burning coal in power plants produces a waste product called coal ash a material that contains small amounts of potentially harmful chemicals Environmentalists in the United States are concerned about the damage such harmful chemicals may be doing to the 85
- At the end of the Triassic period 200 million years ago there was a mass extinction event that caused the extinction of more than half of all living species It was this extinction event that allowed dinosaurs to become the dominant species for the next 14 80
- In 1995 a microscopic fungus called Phytophthora ramorum or P ramorum was first detected in the forests of the western United States P ramorum infects trees and causes particularly serious damage in oak trees in many infected oaks leaves wither rapidly la 76
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement Leadership comes naturally one cannot learn to be a leader Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer 81
- salinity lake 3
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
we can't only argue those:
Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased.
we need to argue more, like:
1. it worked 10 years ago, it may not work today;
2. other reasons have caused the increase...
3. it worked for location A, it may not work for location B;
....
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 336 350
No. of Characters: 1722 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.281 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.125 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.766 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.765 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.62 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.588 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 513, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...and Confusing Cause and Effect Fallacy. Therefore is logically not sound. First of all...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, if, look, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, while, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1774.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 336.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27976190476 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81619969562 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491071428571 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.8385404413 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.352941176 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7647058824 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.58823529412 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0949973539378 0.218282227539 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0317669467756 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0486863540015 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0529492079585 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427279641278 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.