While the birth rates affect the population change in the city, the authors' argument is rife with holes and assumptions. He built his conclusion on an unreliable evidence. Moreover, his recommendations are evasive.
First, the authors' argument is not strong enough since it is depends on the comparison between the birth rate in two years, comparing two numbers does not give a valid result. For example, it might be the birth rate of the last four years was increasing, and just the birth rate at last year significantly decreased. Furthermore, the author did not state how the birth rate was obtained, the residents might have their babies at nearby hospitals in different cities, so the birth certificates will have other cities on it, which would give a fallacious idea about the birth rates in the city. The author would back his argument if he included the birth rates of the last five years or more.
building on the implication of the decline in the birth rate, the author concluded that the number of students enrolled in the public schools will soon decrease dramatically. At the same time, the author ignored the other factors of students' enrollment in public schools, most importantly, the population change in the city. For instance, many families with children might move into the city, this will increase the enrollment rates. Also, the birth rate of one year cannot be representative of the number of students who will enroll in the public school for the next ten years. the recommendation that the city can safely reduce the funds budgeted for education and recreational facilities during the next decade is evasive and erratic.
Finally, while the author seems optimistic about having the sufficient money to fund city facilities and programs used primarily by adults, it is not reliable expectation that the adult population of the city will increase. as mentioned before families with children may move in the city, also, students may attend colleges and university outside the city. Only the population change analysis can be used effectively to strengthen the author's argument.
In conclusion, the author did make a cogent case, since the argument is not logical. It is important to take into consideration all the data which affect the school enrollment and population change.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: First, the authors' argument is not strong enough since it is depends on the comparison between the birth rate in two years, comparing two numbers does not give a valid result.
Description: The token is is not usually followed by a noun, plural, common
Suggestion: Refer to is and depends
-----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
also need to argue:
At the same time, we can reduce funding for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 378 350
No. of Characters: 1879 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.409 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.971 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.681 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.721 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.624 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 69, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the population change in the city, the authors argument is rife with holes and assumpt...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 12, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ommendations are evasive. First, the authors argument is not strong enough since it ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Building
...ates of the last five years or more. building on the implication of the decline in th...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 580, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...e public school for the next ten years. the recommendation that the city can safely...
^^^
Line 7, column 225, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: As
...t population of the city will increase. as mentioned before families with children...
^^
Line 7, column 436, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n be used effectively to strengthen the authors argument. In conclusion, the author ...
^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hool enrollment and population change.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so, then, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1940.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 378.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13227513228 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40933352052 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75350950949 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.505291005291 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 606.6 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4889063427 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.117647059 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2352941176 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.52941176471 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.132799438472 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0478211262741 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0532739245898 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0649007415193 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.039673500902 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
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: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.