The autonomy of any country is based on the strength of its borders; if the number of illegal immigrants entering a country cannot be checked, both its economy and national identity are endangered. Because illegal immigrants pose such threats, every effort must be made to return them to their country of origin
The argument claims that the autonomy of any country is based on the number of illegal immigrants entering the country and this is because they pose a national threat. Stated this way the argument have failed to explain several key factors and manipulated facts on which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no strong evidence. Thus the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that, autonomy of the country is based on the strength of it's border. This statement is a stretch and is no substantiated in anyway. For example, many people from Mexico are entering USA as illegal immigrants. But, still America is the greatest power in the world. The autonomy of the country depends on the many other economical factors such as Drugs,Human Trafficking and fake currency. The author failed to explain how the autonomy is any country is disturbed by the illegal immigrants. The argument lacks relevant evidence by which author could have sounded a bit convincing.
Secondly, the argument claims that both the economy and national identity will be in danger if the illegal immigrants are not checked. The argument fails to explain the correlation between the endanger of the economy and national integrity. If the correlation was explained with relevant examples then the argument could have been bit convincing.
Finally, the argument concludes that the economy can be improved when the illegal immigrants are sent back to their country. Again, this is weak statement which dose not have a strong examples or evidence to defend. Without any proofs and strong evidence the argument will remain a wishful act . Hence, the argument do not have legs to stand on.
In summery, the argument have several flaws and no solid evidence to stand on. If the author would have provided the argument with more relevant then the argument could have been more convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 401, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... for which there is no strong evidence. Thus the argument is weak, unconvincing and ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 161, Rule ID: IN_ANYWAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in any way'?
Suggestion: in any way
...nt is a stretch and is no substantiated in anyway. For example, many people from Mexico a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 358, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...f the country depends on the many other economical factors such as Drugs,Human Trafficking...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 390, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , Human
...y other economical factors such as Drugs,Human Trafficking and fake currency. The auth...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 529, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...is disturbed by the illegal immigrants. The argument lacks relevant evidence by whi...
^^^
Line 5, column 190, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ails to explain the correlation between the endanger of the economy and national integrity. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 242, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... of the economy and national integrity. If the correlation was explained with rele...
^^
Line 5, column 332, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'bitten'.
Suggestion: bitten
...mples then the argument could have been bit convincing. Finally, the argument co...
^^^
Line 7, column 185, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'example'?
Suggestion: example
... statement which dose not have a strong examples or evidence to defend. Without any proo...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 294, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...e the argument will remain a wishful act . Hence, the argument do not have legs to...
^^
Line 9, column 80, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...laws and no solid evidence to stand on. If the author would have provided the argu...
^^
Line 9, column 94, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had provided'?
Suggestion: had provided
...lid evidence to stand on. If the author would have provided the argument with more relevant then t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 145, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...provided the argument with more relevant then the argument could have been more c...
^^
Line 9, column 147, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...ovided the argument with more relevant then the argument could have been more convi...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, but, finally, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => OK
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1661.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 324.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12654320988 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63512909085 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.453703703704 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 705.55239521 74% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.6605377564 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.05 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 14.0 5.25449101796 266% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234660344345 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0804363728256 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121198790899 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.135745575277 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0814855929156 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.8 14.3799401198 75% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.31 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => Gunning_fog is low.
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.