"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 author of this argument propose to replace Rockingham's century-old town hall by the larger building which will make it more energy-efficient and will allow them to save a considerable amount of money. However, author has naively come to a conclusion without considering the factors which will be involved in building a new town hall.
Considering, requirement of funds to build a new town hall. To break an old town hall and build a new over it will surely require money but the question is from where it will come? It might be possible, the government or community which is looking over these issues have to divert there funds from more important project currently going on in Rockingham and that can turn out to be a waste of investment. The author's argument in not convincing enough to build a new town hall.
Moving on to the point, new constructed building will be more energy-efficient. A large building, have more volume and can accommodate more people will surely require more air-conditioners in summer and heaters in winter. Hence, the energy consumption of the newly build town hall will be much more than the current town hall. So, there is clear dichotomy in the facts provided by the author and expectations that he is having. Further, author needs to amass more information and present more evidence in order to make argument more compelling and conclusive.
Additionally, the author implies that some space in the building can be used as a rent-able property and will be an income generating asset for the town. But considering the fact that, are the people in requirement of taking the space on rent? And if they are, giving on rent will be enough for compensating the investment done in building in first place? For example, if we build a house for $100 and rent it for $5 per month then first we have cover the initial investment done by us i.e. $100. For that it will require continue rent for 20 months and then I will be in a position to save money. That leaves argument vague and ambiguous.
Hence, the author has to collect more information about the old building. The author must search for some solid evidence. He should do a complete and detailed study of the claims he has presented and emphasize on other factors that are affecting it in order to make his claim more cogent and logically correct.
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. 75
- A nation requires all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they join college. 50
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 58
- 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 acco 63
- "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 comfortabl 82
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 1886 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.645 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.705 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 115 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.3 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.736 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 410, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rn out to be a waste of investment. The authors argument in not convincing enough to bu...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 412, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... we build a house for 00 and rent it for per month then first we have cover the i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, look, so, then, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1930.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.76543209877 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76154267934 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.476543209877 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.7134478353 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.5 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.25 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.3 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317760977442 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107270473363 0.0743258471296 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0974993530756 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.198159695349 0.128457276422 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0995919255726 0.0628817314937 158% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.39 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.67 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.