168
The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette , a local newspaper.
"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the letter recommends that Oak City needs to limit its citizenship only to the residents who both work and live within the boundary of the city. He believes that this will help to make the city a better place for the residents because its budget might be spent only for the residents without interference of the outsiders. This might sound plausible at first, but the invalidity of the answers to the question leads me to doubt its validity.
First, the author asserts that the primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to give advice to the government to make better decision on budget spending for the residents of the city. This process is, however, hindered by some of the committee members who are not the residents of the city. The author implies that some of the committee members should be ferreted out of the society, and this will preclude the possibility that they might hinder the decision-making procedure of budget spending because they are not living in the city. Granted, however the validity of the advice of the Committee should be evaluated first before it segregates the opponents. The advice might be only beneficial for some of the residents not all. For example, it might have to do with constructing a new sports center close to a certain part of the city with the government’s money. This advice cannot be helpful for all the citizens of the area.
Next, the author recommends that the citizenship should be limited only to those who are both living and working in the city because those living outside the city boundary cannot completely understand the business and politics there. Here, the author needs to answer the definition of the boundary of the city. Is that the territorial boundary of the city area? If so, how could the city draw a clear line of the physical boundary. Or, does that mean the symbolical meaning of the area? How about the company which is located outside of the city’s material boundary, but with a number of the workers who are both living in the city and paying for city’s tax. Does the company belong to the city or not? Moreover, the author needs to answer whether the people who are not living in the city cannot fully understand the situation there. The possibility that there might be those who works for the city, even if they are not living there such as government officials who are working there and living outside or the workers who have the job there and commute from outside every day. These people might better understand the meticulous system, how the government and industry of the city operate than the residents who are just leaving the city’s territorial boundary.
Lastly, the author needs to answer the question whether only the residents understand how the money of the city government should be spent to improve the city because they are the only the tax payers. As aforementioned, there might exist other contributors in the city who are financially supporting as well as relying on the city’s industry. They should be regarded as another tax payer through indirect way. Thus, those contributors are also eligible for getting citizenship of the city. Moreover, even the taxpayers who directly perform their duty might not fully understand how the money is spent or do not care about it that much even if the government’s decision directly affect their lives. This misunderstanding poses the danger of affecting the government to make the wrong decision. Therefore, the broader and various perspectives of the outsiders who contribute the well fare of the city is imperatively needed.
In brief, the author answers the question whether the city should limit its citizenship is not sufficient on many grounds. He has to strengthen his recommendation with more concrete justifications.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 643 350
No. of Characters: 3095 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.036 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.622 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 153 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.172 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.319 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.517 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.387 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.167 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
.... This process is, however, hindered by some of the committee members who are not the resid...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 334, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ts of the city. The author implies that some of the committee members should be ferreted ou...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 718, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...The advice might be only beneficial for some of the residents not all. For example, it migh...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 37, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
... Lastly, the author needs to answer the question whether only the residents understand how the m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 178, Rule ID: THE_EXACTLY_THE[1]
Message: Duplicated 'the' in the phrase: 'the only the'. Did you mean 'only the'?
Suggestion: only the
...nt to improve the city because they are the only the tax payers. As aforementioned, there mi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 31, Rule ID: WHETHER[5]
Message: Can you shorten this phrase to just 'whether', or rephrase the sentence to avoid "the question"?
Suggestion: whether
...eeded. In brief, the author answers the question whether the city should limit its citizenship i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, therefore, thus, well, as to, for example, in brief, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3194.0 2260.96107784 141% => OK
No of words: 643.0 441.139720559 146% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96734059098 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.03561760524 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75813843504 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.376360808709 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1003.5 705.55239521 142% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.2419035392 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.137931034 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1724137931 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.51724137931 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296200153968 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0965285710654 0.0743258471296 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865694700573 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176815571133 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0491869071942 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.38 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.