Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because it has spectacular natural beauty and a consistent climate. Another advantage is that housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Moreover, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. And best of all, retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average.
The argument claims that clearview is the best choice for the retirees because of it’s consistent climate and natural beauty. In addition, it also claims that the cost to buy a house is economical and the health care is quite promising. Proclaimed this way the argument fails to mention several key factors and manipulates facts by which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is not strong evidence. However, careful audit of the evidence reveals little support to the conclusion. Thus, the argument is weak.
Firstly, the argument assumes that clearview must be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because of it’s natural beauty and consistent climate. This statement is only an assumption and does not have a clear evidence. For example, Many parts of japan have a spectacular natural beauty and great climate, but the frequency of the natural calamities will not encourage most of the people to stay there for a long time, especially if anyone wanna retire there. If the argument was explicitly stated that it was free from all natural calamities then the author could have been much convincing.
Secondly, the argument claims that the schools, streets and public services will be improved as promised by the mayor. This statement is a weak claim because it does not explains the correlation between the improvement of the schools and public services and how they can be useful for the retirees. If the author could have produced concrete evidence on how will the improvement of schools and public services can be useful for retirees then the author could have sounded better. For instance, How can retirees utilise the services provided? This could have stated better.
Finally, the argument concludes that retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average. This is again a weak statement. However, number of physicians in that area does not mean that they are working in the same area, their origin might be from clearview and they might be working in other parts of the nation. However, clear audit of the evidence provide evidence provided in the argument provide little credible support and at the same time are sculpturing some questions. Without answering the questions the claim with remain as a wishful thought rather than a substantial evidence.
In sum, the argument is weak and unconvincing. To bolster the argument could have provided concrete evidence and detailed analysis on the casting the advantages why people must prefer clearview over other towns.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 223, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...house is economical and the health care is quite promising. Proclaimed this way the argument fails...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'anyone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'seeks'.
Suggestion: seeks
...earview must be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because of it's...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 478, 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.
...specially if anyone wanna retire there. If the argument was explicitly stated that...
^^
Line 7, column 171, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'explain'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: explain
...ent is a weak claim because it does not explains the correlation between the improvement...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 171, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'explain'
Suggestion: explain
...ent is a weak claim because it does not explains the correlation between the improvement...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, for example, for instance, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2252.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1298405467 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.59612947139 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451025056948 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0602892695 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.363636364 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9545454545 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.72727272727 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251051083142 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0727574102407 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103620968874 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.142762341521 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0966879610141 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.