The author puts forth an argument to start collecting funds from the visitors of the Trial island. To prove his point, he gives the reason of sand replenishment and the protection of buildings from sand erosion. The reasons produced by the author has long leaps and logical fallacies. There are unstated assumptions for which there isn't any evidence provided. Hence the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the funds would help replenishment of the sand that is eroding on Tria islands. This statement is a stretch and does not provide a logical connection between collecting funds and preventing sand erosion. Without knowing the root cause of sand erosion, there is no sense in replenishing the sand. As it is rightly said 'prevention is better than cure', the author must address the root cause and try to work on it to permanently stop sand erosion rather than replenishing it for the entire future. For example, if there is water pollution in the river due to toxic discharge from a factory, the factory discharge must be filtered and treated before mixing in the river, rather than spending money on cleaning the river perennially. Clearly, the author does not acknowledge the cause of sand erosion before taking about replenishing the sand. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated all the factors contributing to sand erosion and all the state of the art technology and solutions available to deal with the same.
Secondly, the argument claims that tourism would get better when the tourists would be charges as the sand would be in better health and the buildings protected. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the sand and tourism. There is quite a high possibility that there are contemporary islands which have free entry to the beaches. The tourists may go for them instead of going for Tria islands. If the argument would have provided evidence that how the tourism would improve with the fee imposed, the argument would have been much more clear.
Finally, the author points out to the Batia city that had their sand replenished to protect their buildings. Again, there can be myriads of reasons for the sand erosion and weakening of the buildings at Batia. What co-relation would this have with buildings at Tria. Are the buildings at Tria weak because of sand erosion? Or there are other factors in play? Is Tria a storm prone area? There are numerous such questions that the author must answer. Without it, the claim does not get a substancial credibility to be acted upon.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is, therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentions all the above fact like causes and techniques of soil erosion and replenishment, tourism factors influencing and how the Batia case is similar to Tria islands. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 333, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...re unstated assumptions for which there isnt any evidence provided. Hence the argume...
^^^^
Line 1, column 361, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...which there isnt any evidence provided. Hence the argument is weak, unconvincing and ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1004, Rule ID: STATE_OF_THE_ART[1]
Message: Did you mean 'state-of-the-art'?
Suggestion: state-of-the-art
...ontributing to sand erosion and all the state of the art technology and solutions available to d...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 477, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had provided'?
Suggestion: had provided
...going for Tria islands. If the argument would have provided evidence that how the tourism would imp...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'for example', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.263888888889 0.25644967241 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.170138888889 0.15541462614 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0607638888889 0.0836205057962 73% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0381944444444 0.0520304965353 73% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0208333333333 0.0272364105082 76% => OK
Prepositions: 0.114583333333 0.125424944231 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0503472222222 0.0416121511921 121% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76625069657 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0260416666667 0.026700313972 98% => OK
Particles: 0.00173611111111 0.001811407834 96% => OK
Determiners: 0.123263888889 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0260416666667 0.0255425247493 102% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.015625 0.0127820249294 122% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3189.0 2731.13054187 117% => OK
No of words: 527.0 446.07635468 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.05123339658 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.34155597723 0.378187486979 90% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.278937381404 0.287650121315 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.187855787476 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.115749525617 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76625069657 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 247.0 207.018472906 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468690702087 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 54.9045201583 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 29.0 20.039408867 145% => OK
Sentence length: 18.1724137931 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2345619769 57.7814097925 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.965517241 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1724137931 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.448275862069 0.724660767414 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 46.0661519335 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.87121212121 1.8405768891 102% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.597361541206 0.441005458295 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.105557096283 0.135418324435 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0775274581044 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.508762403052 0.58762219726 87% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.166713768286 0.147661913831 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.234574373113 0.193483328276 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117674059984 0.0970749176394 121% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.50940450688 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0779189993625 0.0774707102158 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.452016062284 0.312017818177 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0605372774059 0.0698173142475 87% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.