The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”
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 if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
Biodiversity is important to maintain rich ecosystems, and environmental protection groups aim to protect this and protest against efforts that cause environmental deterioration. The argument made in their petition specifies that development on a small percentage of the land would have disastrous consequences for the area, claiming that the community has no benefit in the project, harming the economy of the community, which relies on tourists who visit for the rich bird populations. But the logic of the argument is fallacious, and can, in some aspects, be easily weakened from the information given in this petition.
First, a major assumption made by the eco-protection group is that the Smith Corporation will not ensure preservation of the sanctuary, and that their plans have not taken into account the area that would be developed. Evidence for this must be clearly provided for a better argument, for it may be possible that the Smith Corporation is notorious for ignoring biodiversity when executing construction projects. In that case, the petition's argument may even be strengthened. Their reasoning that 'there is no way' that the plans will not harm the sanctuary relies on the assumption that they have ruminated on all the possible directions the project may go, and that not a single one is conducive to the preservation of the region's ecosystem.
Second, an interesting point brought up in the petition is that the community greatly depends on tourists who visit to observe the 300 bird species that reside in the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. They claim that, on this premise, the construction of a small hotel in the area would harm the sanctuary and the community. While the project's potential harmful effects on the sanctuary are based on the line of reasoning established in the previous paragraph, the harmful effects it may have on the community's economy is something to think about. Would the construction of a small hotel not increase the number of tourists who arrive? After all, it provides them a place to stay very close to the very tourist attractions that they travelled across hundreds of miles for. Thus, the hotel could have a positive effect on the local economy, and could perhaps even be built in a sustainable way, that does not leave the sanctuary littered.
Finally, while we have detailed the ways in which the petition's argument fails, we must not fully discount the demands of the petitioners. Their criticism for the project comes not from a place of hatred, but from a love for nature. (This is a reasonable assumption to make.) The Smith Corporation could even request suggestions from the environmental protection group, and have some of their representatives on the team. Such groups care for the integrity of different biodiversity hotspots, and could make specific requests to the Corporation so that the plans do not accidentally intrude in the lives of the bird populations. Such measures, and many others, could be taken. The argument made assumes that these measures are impossible, and fails to consider any possibility of cooperation with the Corporation. Hence, the group's demands must be taken into account, although the argument made by them in this respect is wrong; assuming that there is no other way is the incorrect conclusion, based on their premise and line of reasoning.
Thus, the petition makes multiple stated and unstated assumptions, but the argument made on these premises is weak and requires further substantiation. If the assumptions made by the group prove unwarranted, as discussed, then the argument falls apart. Their argument should be improved with meticulous efforts to prove each claim, and cement their lines of reasoning towards their conclusions/demands.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-07 | Saket Choudhary | 78 | view |
| 2023-06-29 | Technoblade | 66 | view |
| 2022-10-23 | mausam | 30 | view |
| 2022-10-23 | mausam | 50 | view |
| 2021-11-18 | Rafid_Murshed | 78 | view |
- The following appears in a letter to the editor for the West Lansburg News The tufted groundhog lives in the coastal wetlands of West Lansburg Ancient records suggest that the tufted groundhog once numbered in the millions Since they were declared a wildl 77
- Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas where the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permit i 78
- A movie producer sent the following memo to the head of the movie studio We need to increase the funding for the movie Working Title by 10 in order to ensure a quality product As you know we are working with a first time director whose only previous exper 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a food distribution company with food storage warehouses in several cities Recently we signed a contract with the Fly Away Pest Control Company to provide pest control services at our warehouse i 63
- Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances times and places Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing 70
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 431, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'petitions'' or 'petition's'?
Suggestion: petitions'; petition's
...onstruction projects. In that case, the petitions argument may even be strengthened. Thei...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 723, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...is conducive to the preservation of the regions ecosystem. Second, an interesting p...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 868, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a sustainable way" with adverb for "sustainable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...conomy, and could perhaps even be built in a sustainable way, that does not leave the sanctuary litt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 55, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'petitions'' or 'petition's'?
Suggestion: petitions'; petition's
... we have detailed the ways in which the petitions argument fails, we must not fully disco...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, then, thus, while, after all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3152.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 604.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21854304636 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95746018188 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01115020699 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 204.123752495 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458609271523 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 966.6 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 13.0 1.67365269461 777% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.4167728237 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.333333333 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1666666667 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.20833333333 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183062348048 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526130511177 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043474689753 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104098987846 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0324860859012 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 431, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'petitions'' or 'petition's'?
Suggestion: petitions'; petition's
...onstruction projects. In that case, the petitions argument may even be strengthened. Thei...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 723, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'regions'' or 'region's'?
Suggestion: regions'; region's
...is conducive to the preservation of the regions ecosystem. Second, an interesting p...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 868, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a sustainable way" with adverb for "sustainable"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...conomy, and could perhaps even be built in a sustainable way, that does not leave the sanctuary litt...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 55, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'petitions'' or 'petition's'?
Suggestion: petitions'; petition's
... we have detailed the ways in which the petitions argument fails, we must not fully disco...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, then, thus, while, after all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 26.0 13.6137724551 191% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3152.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 604.0 441.139720559 137% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21854304636 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95746018188 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01115020699 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 277.0 204.123752495 136% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.458609271523 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 966.6 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 13.0 1.67365269461 777% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.4167728237 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.333333333 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.1666666667 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.20833333333 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183062348048 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0526130511177 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043474689753 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.104098987846 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0324860859012 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.