In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
While a study on the frequency of checking of a particular type of book in a public library may sometimes represent the reading habits of citizens surrounding that library, the argument concluding this scenario as real picture evidencing the study as only one proof is full of rife and holes. In addition to this specific study, the argument should take account into other evidences also for two reasons.
To begin, in the argument the earlier study has shown that the citizens preferred literary classics as reading material. However, the study has not showed the method and not mentioned anything about the study procedure. Weather the responded faced any alternative option or their preference is dependent solely on the availability of the books in the library in unclear. It may happen that their preference of book genre is dependent on the source. The might not find others category of books in nearer library which would make them to change their mind and consequently in reading habits. If this becomes true, then the study result is faulty and might be provincial. Moreover, the study might not include enough respondent to conduct the procedure in statically sound way.
In addition to the result of the earlier study on the citizens reading habits, the argument also presents a second study conducted by the same researchers whose results is incongruous to the first one. Second study is refuting the result of first study based on the assumption that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries is the real and significant indicator of reading habits, therefore it is concluding that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. This assumption does not always hold the water. In this tech-dependent worlds few people are interested in going to the library in persons. Books of several genres are available on internet, Amazon and people can easily get their preferred one through home delivery service sitting at home. Citizens might check the mystery novel only because it is found best in the library and library may provide this particular type of book at free of charge. If people get the chance to read books at free cost, then why don’t they use the opportunity. On the basis of these scenario before concluding the argument must expand the scope of the study and revise the study result weather it is presenting the real big picture or not. Otherwise the argument will fall apart.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-01 | mainulislamjoy | 60 | view |
| 2023-08-04 | diya | 58 | view |
| 2023-02-13 | spandan.sureja | 65 | view |
| 2022-09-13 | fangzr | 58 | view |
| 2021-10-19 | reeya kiran | 55 | view |
- It is better to work as a team than as an individual to succeed 73
- A nation should require all of students to study same national curriculum until they enter college 50
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 50
- To reverse a decline in listener numbers our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock music format The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here 68
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the 79
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2022 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.884 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.575 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.369 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.325 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1081, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this scenario' or 'these scenarios'?
Suggestion: this scenario; these scenarios
...ey use the opportunity. On the basis of these scenario before concluding the argument must exp...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1244, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...presenting the real big picture or not. Otherwise the argument will fall apart.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2061.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99031476998 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61475202724 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489104116223 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 653.4 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.2142973287 57.8364921388 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.5 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9444444444 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.15768463074 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295880127434 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.091122304323 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0897409403776 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202760274499 0.128457276422 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0551736172956 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
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.