The first step to self-knowledge is rejecting the familiar.
In the above article published in the newspaper, it is stated that, autonomy of any country is based on strength of its border and inorder to protect the autonomy the country has to check on the illegal immigration. To support the conclusion, the article asserts that illegal immigrants pose threats to national economy and national identity. But there several unstated assumptions made that reduces the overall significance of the conclusion.
The author of the above newspaper assumes that there are no others threats that are more harmful that illegal immigrants, it assumes that illegal immmigration are more harmful and produce more threats to national economy and national identity. It can be possible that immigrants can inturn increase the national economy, they try to start new business in the country which can led to a boost in economy if many such startups are initiated. With an increase in country's economy there is a commensurate increase in the autonomy of the country. If the above statement is true, the arguement explicitly looses its significance.
Another assumption the author makes is that if a national identity is endangered then it causes a downfall in autonomy of the country. For such a strong supposition it requires a massive research and a clear datas about the national identity of the country and its level of autonomy of the past years. There has to be proper data of the past years of number of illegal immigrations and autonomy position of the country in that years. If in case there is no change or a decrease in autonomy of the country even if the illegal immigration of that country increase, then the arguement cannot be considered significantly.
In conclusion, the arguement, which it stands right now, requires further evaluations in order to support the arguement. The author has weaken the arguement by assuming many assumptions which has not analysed. If any of the supposition made are incorrect then the argument as a whole looses it's significance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
In the above article published in the ne...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rall significance of the conclusion. The author of the above newspaper assume...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... explicitly looses its significance. Another assumption the author makes is t...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cannot be considered significantly. In conclusion, the arguement, which it s...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 144, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'weakened'.
Suggestion: weakened
...o support the arguement. The author has weaken the arguement by assuming many assumpti...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, then, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 58.6224719101 80% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1678.0 2235.4752809 75% => OK
No of words: 329.0 442.535393258 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10030395137 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9004032706 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 215.323595506 66% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.431610942249 0.4932671777 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 554.4 704.065955056 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 20.2370786517 69% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.942750813 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.857142857 118.986275619 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.5 5.21951772744 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.243740707755 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0831039109588 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0758088955206 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.150359130593 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0667264976115 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.1639044944 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 100.480337079 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.