SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreover, Middlesburg is a predominately urban area and according to an employee survey, SuperCorp has determined that its workers prefer to live in an area that is not urban. Finally, Corporateville has lower taxes than Middlesburg, making it not only a safer place to work but also a cheaper one. Therefore, Supercorp clearly made the best decision.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The above argument is based on three main assumptions from which it concludes it's main conclusion, that Supercorp's decision to move it's headquarters to Corporateville was justified.
The first assumption is that the surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville indicates that it is a much better place to live in than Middlesburg. This hypothesis is most likely based on the thought that a rise in homeowners indicates the area specified has been proven to be more alluring than others. This assumption is a fallacy since there are many reasons such a rise might occur, and some of them might indicate the exact opposite situation. For example, the rise in homeownership in Corporateville might have been a result of a decline in house prices. Such a decline might indicate that Corporateville is less attractive to homeowners, and thus now attracts mainly low income individuals who cannot afford a house anywhere else. In such a case, the argument's conclusion is void. Only if SuperCorp were able to conclude that the surge in homeowneship in Corporateville is a result of a rise in it's attractivness, would the argument become valid.
A second assumption which is used to substantiate the conclusion of the argument is that the employee survey's results undoubtly indicate the prefrences of all SuperCorp employees, and this might be untrue. For example, if the survey was answered by a small number of respondents, by employees from one specific department, or by single and childless employees only, it might result in a conclusion that does not represent the desires of all employees. In such a case, all the survey implys is that some employees would prefer Corporateville, with no conclusion regarding the majority. Only if the mentioned survey were held under statistical standards, including representation of all types of employees, would it indicate the preferences of all employees, and even then it might be biased in some way.
Lastly, the argument relys on the assumption that lower taxes result in a safer place to live or work in, as well as lessens employees' financial strains. This assumption is highly unlikely since in most cases, low taxes result in underfunding of municipal services such as schools, police forces, activities for the youth and so on. In such cases, it is more likely that lower taxes would result in Middlesburg being a much safer place than Corporateville do to larger police funding and youth activites. Therefore, Corporateville would still be a cheaper place to live in, but undoubtly not a safer one, and thus employees might find themselves reluctant to move there. In order to strengthen the above argument, and render this assumption valid, it is crucial to survey cities throughout the country and examine if there is a correlation between low tax rates and safety. If so, the assumption that low tax rates indicates a safer community, might be strengthened.
In conclusion, the argument that SuperCorp employees would rather live in Corporateville is based on three main fallacies that render it invalid. Only by adrressing these fallacies would it be possible to determine where the employees would rather live.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 2 is wrong.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 518 350
No. of Characters: 2605 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.771 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.029 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.018 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.127 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 766, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ouse anywhere else. In such a case, the arguments conclusion is void. Only if SuperCorp w...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 250, Rule ID: SMALL_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, use 'a few', or use 'some'
Suggestion: a few; some
... example, if the survey was answered by a small number of respondents, by employees from one spec...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 138, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'invalids'?
Suggestion: invalids
... on three main fallacies that render it invalid. Only by adrressing these fallacies wou...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, lastly, regarding, second, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as, in most cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2673.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 518.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16023166023 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08761379131 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432432432432 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 840.6 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.070710228 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.65 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.9 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.25 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173539358335 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659753823217 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.078881863672 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114723744458 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581076942164 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.