The council of Maple County, concerned about the county’s becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limiting the supply of new housing, could lead to significant increases in the price of housing in the county. Proponents of the measure note that Chestnut County established a similar measure ten years ago, and its housing prices have increased only modestly since. However, opponents of the measure note that Pine County adopted restrictions on the development of new residential housing fifteen years ago, and its housing prices have since more than doubled. The council currently predicts that the proposed measure, if passed, will result in a significant increase in housing prices in Maple County.
The statement presents a prediction by the council of Maple County that claims the prices of housing in Maple County will increase because of a preventive program to restrict the overdeveloping of the Maple County. The prediction is mainly based on the fact that the restriction rule caused significant raise in the pricing of houses in Pine County fifteen years ago. However, the same rule caused only a trivial increase in the prices of houses in Chestnut County. The author has reached at this prediction based on unexamined suppositions and the prediction is replete with unanswered questions.
Firstly, the fact that Maple County is being overdeveloped should be evaluated incisively. What is the population of the Maple County? What is the area of the Maple County? Is the area of this county commensurate to its population? Answering these questions help the council to decide about the rate of growth in this county. Perhaps, the rate is negligible and the council can wrest control of the growth using alternative approaches such as building towers and apartments instead of houses to increase the development in vertical scale instead of horizontal scale. Therefore, pondering over sufficient statistics and information regarding the population and area of the county lead to a wise decision on preventing the development of existing farmlands in the county.
Secondly, the author mentions the results of the rule of farmland development restriction in two counties of Chestnut and Pine related to ten and fifteen years ago, respectively. The comparison reveals that the prices of houses in Chestnut county increased modestly, but Pine county experienced doubled prices since then. The comparison and results are rife with ambiguity. No information regarding the population, area, the primary prices of houses, and other effective factors are provided. Also, relying on the events of a decade ago to be useful for today’s economy is basically imprudent since both counties have confronted numerous changes and they may have different conditions in comparison to the Maple county.
Thirdly, by assuming that the proposed measure is passed by the council and the prices of houses are increased consequently, one cannot conclude that the prices are going to be fixed at that high price. It is possible that the high prices forces people to migrate from the county and search for a more reasonable place to live, so the prices may decrease again. In addition, the council is required to investigate on the wages of people and economic situations. Are the residents able to pay the increased rent by their current wages? How this inflation may impress daily life and economy of Maple county’s residents?
To summarize, the prediction needs to be evaluated deeply since there are a number of unanswered questions and no concrete evidence is provided to support the prediction. If the author seeks to reach at the conclusion that the prediction is true, he should elucidate the above-mentioned ambiguities, otherwise the prediction is untenable.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 23 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2516 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.156 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.847 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.217 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.51 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2577.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28073770492 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95108648042 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.47131147541 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 823.5 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.5601764499 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.043478261 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2173913043 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.30434782609 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224680811278 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664096105854 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613099129298 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116584809817 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0755817755061 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.11 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.