“In order to alleviate the serious unemployment problem in our town, we should encourage Autotech to build its automobile manufacturing plant in our area. The Hillview landfill, which has been undeveloped from decades, is a perfect site for this plant. The building and staffing this plant will put to work thousands of Hillview residents left unemployed after Computech computer software programming company abandoned its national facility last year. I am asking the City Council to authorize a large campaign to attract the company and offer significant tax incentives to make our town attractive to this giant of car manufacturing.”
In a memo from the Mayor of the city of Hillview it appeared that to lessen the serious unemployment problem in their town, they should encourage Autotech company to build its automobile manufacturing plant in their area. It is asserted by the Mayor that the Hillview landfill is a perfect site for this plant which has not been developed since decades. Moreover, this plant would put thousands of Hillview residents to work who were left unemployed after Computech Computer software programming company abandoned its national facility last year. So, the Mayor is asking City Council to authorize a large campaign to attract this company and by offering significant tax incentives to their town and making it attractive for this giant car company. However, this argument ultimately fails as it suffers from several unanswered questions.
As, the Mayor asserted that this company would alleviate the unemployment caused after Computech Computer software abandoned its facility last year. But the question that arises is that will all the unemployed people of Computech company get job in this Automobile Company. Also it needs to be looked at that if the person was Software Engineer in Computech Company would he have the same job in this automobile company too. Moreover, it is also not asserted by the Mayor that would the unemployed people get the same Salaries and incentives that they were provided by Computech company. However, the site which Mayor have suggested is the Hillview landfill area where all the wastes from the city of Hillview would have been dumped. So it might be possible that no other company would have come up with the plan to build their buildings in that area. It is also to be looked into that were would be the waste dumped if the Hillview landfill is been given to the Autotech Car company for its development.
Moreover, the Mayor have also asked the City Council to authorize a large campaign to attract this company and to offer grants and significant tax incentives to make their town attractive. So, it might happened that the Mayor might have asked for significantly high incentives from the City Council which might be also beneficial for his well-being. In this memo it is also not given that how would they make the city attractive and why did the Computech Company abandoned its national facility last year to this town. So, these are the questions which need to be answered for the argument recommended by the Mayor.
So, I would like to conclude that there are various fallacies and points put forward by the Mayor to attract the new Automobile car company but they seem substantially lacking the ideas and should be properly recommended.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 275, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...any get job in this Automobile Company. Also it needs to be looked at that if the pe...
^^^^
Line 3, column 887, Rule ID: WERE_MD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where would'?
Suggestion: where would
...area. It is also to be looked into that were would be the waste dumped if the Hillview lan...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 120, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ign to attract this company and to offer grants and significant tax incentives to...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251046025105 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.188284518828 0.15541462614 121% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0585774058577 0.0836205057962 70% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0481171548117 0.0520304965353 92% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0564853556485 0.0272364105082 207% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.102510460251 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0543933054393 0.0416121511921 131% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.61496169979 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0376569037657 0.026700313972 141% => OK
Particles: 0.00209205020921 0.001811407834 115% => OK
Determiners: 0.115062761506 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0355648535565 0.0255425247493 139% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0209205020921 0.0127820249294 164% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2691.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 450.0 446.07635468 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.98 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.315555555556 0.378187486979 83% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.277777777778 0.287650121315 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.217777777778 0.208842608468 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.117777777778 0.135150697306 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61496169979 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.391111111111 0.469332199767 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 42.7393898131 52.1807786196 82% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 26.4705882353 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.2333936179 57.7814097925 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.294117647 141.986410481 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4705882353 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.529411764706 0.724660767414 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 54.2483660131 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.39285714286 1.8405768891 76% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.393931789601 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.151220422363 0.135418324435 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0715790248873 0.0829849096947 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.595293688998 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146666559214 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.182303216002 0.193483328276 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100363817142 0.0970749176394 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.525915238087 0.42659136922 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0934484433594 0.0774707102158 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285838847088 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116329957458 0.0698173142475 167% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: 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.