The given argument while on face value seems to have solid grounds for acceptance, leaves much loop holes unanswered.
Firstly, the conundrum of possible fluctuations in housing prices are not proposed in a scientific manner. Has there been an official survey solely dedicated to investigation of housing prices prior and after the implementation of this measure? Maybe there are underlying reasons for this extremely different reactions to the limitation. A palpable yet stupefyingly ignored factor in housing prices is population growth. Should the progeny propagation rates drop or remain unchanged, the house prices would not suffer much growth despite the imposed limitations; that could have been the case for the unperturbed housing market of Chestnut County.
In addition, the economical impact of disturbing the current farmland to housing equilibrium in favor of either side must also be calculated. Is Maple Country economy reliant chiefly on farming? Or perhaps meet production or tannery are the main industries there? Moreover, which would cause more disruption and poverty in the existing community, lack of farms or lack of housing?
Lastly, according to the argument the council deems the aforementioned plan will surges housing prices. Yet, it fails to mention any basis for such claim. Is the population of this county prognosticated to grow in near future? If so, the existing housing facilities will or will not be adequate? To accept or refute plans on such a long term scale, the future plans for development of the county must also be taken into account. Perhaps, due to the elevation in the number of available homes, the boundaries of the county would grow to cover more but yet unused land to bring under irrigation and plantation.
The ground for argument for both parties seem completely baseless thus leaving much ground for deeper analysis and inquiry.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 300 350
No. of Characters: 1550 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.162 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.167 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 120 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.243 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.279 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.279 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.022 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 84, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a scientific manner" with adverb for "scientific"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ions in housing prices are not proposed in a scientific manner. Has there been an official survey sole...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 18, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...t of Chestnut County. In addition, the economical impact of disturbing the current farmla...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 82, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'surge'
Suggestion: surge
...ncil deems the aforementioned plan will surges housing prices. Yet, it fails to mentio...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, thus, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 5.0 28.8173652695 17% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1590.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 300.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.3 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8134597128 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.62 0.468620217663 132% => OK
syllable_count: 494.1 705.55239521 70% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6081749611 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.5294117647 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.6470588235 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.82352941176 5.70786347227 85% => 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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130445049556 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0388974945923 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395080805058 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0552855787192 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0676318335796 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.48 8.32208582834 114% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.