"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."
According to the conclusion of this editorial, the new and larger building of town hall in place of the old one will help in saving money and energy. However, many points given in support of the views of the writer are not very convincing. Although, there is no doubt that the new proposed building will have many advantages over the old town hall, but the author has ignored to mention many important points. He has completely failed to provide evidence for his reasons to build the new building. The points given by the author have no relevant relation among themselves. For example, the cost effectiveness and the fact that the old building is not able to accommodate its employees are not related anywhere. He has tried to explain the need of the new town hall but has neglected to suggest the alternative measures that can be taken to solve the problems faced by the old town hall.
The author has talked about the larger and the energy efficient new building. According to him, it would cost less per cubic foot to heat and cool the new building as compared to the old town hall building. However, he has easily forgotten to mention the overall cost of heating and cooling the much larger new building. This cost might be much higher than the current expenses. In addition, there will be the costs of constructing the new building and installing new systems. The author has not even mentioned the option of installing new heating and cooling systems in the old building. The upgradation of the old system might be more cost effective. Besides, the new building might also need some maintenance fee to maintain the new facilities added to the building.
The second point on which the author is insisting is that the current building cannot comfortably accommodate all the people who work in it. This point is anyways not related to the money saving measures the author is talking about. Here again, the author has ignored other more effective solutions for this problem. For example, adding another structure for the employees.
Another point is about the renting out of the parts of the new property to generate some income. However, the views of the author are contradictory as on one hand, he is explaining the need of a larger building and on the other hand, he is talking about the renting out some part of property. Hence, if the new and larger building is the need of the hour then there is no scope of additional income. The author has failed to give enough and strong evidence for the requirement of the new building. He has also forgotten to consider the heritage value of the Rockingham's century old town hall.
Hence, the author has to collect more information about the old building. The author must search for some solid evidence. He should do a complete and detailed study of comparing the cost effectiveness of both the options including the initial cost of setting up the new building and replacing the old heating system in the old building. The author has to work towards making his editorial logically more correct.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'anyway', 'besides', 'but', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'as to', 'for example', 'in addition', 'no doubt', 'talking about', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.228621291449 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.169284467714 0.15541462614 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.104712041885 0.0836205057962 125% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0418848167539 0.0520304965353 81% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0244328097731 0.0272364105082 90% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102966841187 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0698080279232 0.0416121511921 168% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.53479502267 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0349040139616 0.026700313972 131% => OK
Particles: 0.00349040139616 0.001811407834 193% => OK
Determiners: 0.151832460733 0.113004496875 134% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0191972076789 0.0255425247493 75% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00523560209424 0.0127820249294 41% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3058.0 2731.13054187 112% => OK
No of words: 528.0 446.07635468 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.79166666667 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.331439393939 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.248106060606 0.287650121315 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.17803030303 0.208842608468 85% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111742424242 0.135150697306 83% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53479502267 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.403409090909 0.469332199767 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.3569243603 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 18.8571428571 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7085826581 57.7814097925 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.214285714 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8571428571 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.571428571429 0.724660767414 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 43.6677489177 51.9672348444 84% => OK
Elegance: 1.7037037037 1.8405768891 93% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.42177703687 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15027088403 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0921447347615 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.619142864792 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.127313438021 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.194442270409 0.193483328276 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833827995937 0.0970749176394 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.571985781086 0.42659136922 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.116218075816 0.0774707102158 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.31882615813 0.312017818177 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0739473788468 0.0698173142475 106% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.82512315271 249% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 11.0 2.82389162562 390% => Less neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 27.0 14.657635468 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More arguments wanted.
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.