The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis.
"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The prompt’s author argues that the city of Transopolis should make industrial use of a declining residential area. To support this position, the author cites the success of the city’s comprehensive urban renewal program ten years ago. Moreover, he/she claims that alternate housing will be provided for those displaced by this action. While the argument does seem promising on the surface, it still is a flawed one as it fails to provide evidence on three key matters.
To begin, the prompt fails to provide evidence that suggests the declining residential area is similar enough to area where the program was initially implemented. Indeed, it is possible that these two areas are vastly different. For instance, the land in the opposite side of the city may not be as suitable for industrial use as the land near the freeway. Perhaps, the former is remotely located and there are significant issues in terms of accessing it. Moreover, it is also possible that there are significant internet and connection issues in this region. If such situations hold merit, it is perhaps unlikely that the industrial use of the proposed land would be as successful as the one cited in the prompt.
Secondly, the author provides no evidence regarding the ways in which the residents of the declining residential area would react to the industrial use of their land. Instead, the author assumes residents will happily adjust to living in homes and apartments that exist in nearby neighborhoods. Yet, the reverse may also hold true. That is, people may not at all be accepting of the proposed plan. Moreover, even if the land’s inhabitants are willing to cooperate, it is not clear if the people in nearby neighbourhoods will. They may refuse to rehome displaced people into their apartments and houses. Given these possibilities and the paucity of proof on this matter, the author’s position is severely damaged.
Finally, the author does not provide any evidence that a plan that was implemented ten years ago will be successful today. Instead, the author gullibly assumes this to be so. Yet, this may not hold water if the circumstances that lead to the previous success no longer exist today. For example, there may have been more apposite legislature that supported the development of factories ten years ago. However, such legislature may have abolished since then. If so, it is not clear if factories will be successfully set up in the proposed region to the degree they were in the past. Similarly, it is also possible that it may have been easier to gain inhabitants’ cooperation in the past than today. This may stem from various factors. For instance, people now maybe more politically and civilly engaged than they were in the past. Given this, they may not be as susceptible to agreeing with this plan than people were in the past. Hence, if there is evidence that corroborates these potential scenarios, then it is questionable if the author’s position can be supported.
In conclusion, the author’s position is flawed as it does not provide for evidence on three key matters. However, if the author can address these issues with relevant evidence, then one can better assess the strength of the author’s argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 30 15
No. of Words: 537 350
No. of Characters: 2612 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.814 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.864 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.776 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.767 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.271 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.329 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 471, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... provide evidence on three key matters. To begin, the prompt fails to provide ev...
^^^
Line 6, column 244, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the strength of the author’s argument.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, still, then, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2702.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 536.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04104477612 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7757658056 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444029850746 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 846.0 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.956573574 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 90.0666666667 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8666666667 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13333333333 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155764938008 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0429517940958 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0681260790859 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0996437973902 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0829214606063 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.