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 argument asserts that maple county desires, appears to be, to control overdevelopment. For doing so, it plans to prevent the development of existing farmlands. thus, finally reaching the conclusion that prices of houses will surge, if it restricts the development of houses. however, in my views, the argument has lot of fallacies and hastily reaches a conclusion. Let us scrutinize the argument from different aspects.
Firstly, an assumption is made that all the aforementioned regions are alike. More data is required such as economic condition, social condition, prices of raw material etcetera. The argument, however fails to provide it. For instance, during the span of ten years as mentioned in the argument, people might have migrated to urban areas whereas the same did not happen in case of pine county. As we can see, one can understand the argument from different perspective unless further eludication is furnished which is vital before arriving to any conclusion.
Secondly, the author misses the elephant in the room and assumes that the economic conditions, current as well as fifteen years ago, are same. A county flourishing ten years ago could be suffering to meet ends today due to a plethora of reasons. For example, the authorities of chestnut county provided the citizens with incentives for buying homes in urban areas at the same time ensuring to maintain the same demand-supply ratio whereas the pine county was ignorant of the issue and thus, failed to address it. before, reaching any conclusion maple county should formulate a plan before implementing the restrictions the hints of are evidently missing from the argument.
Moving on, even if one assumes that all the above-mentioned is provided with, the argument throws an ambiguous term 'predict'. if one takes chestnut county as a model one will reach the conclusion that prices will skyrocket after restrictions however, if one follows pine county model one will be discouraged to implement the restrictions. Look at the ambiguity of the situation the argument does not provide enough about how it predicted that the prices will increase.
To sum up, the argument's ineffectiveness can be attributed to dearth of information and scarcity of logic. To make the argument stronger, the above-mentioned issues must be address.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 370 350
No. of Characters: 1891 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.386 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.111 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.904 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.071 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 165, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
... the development of existing farmlands. thus, finally reaching the conclusion that p...
^^^^
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: However
...it restricts the development of houses. however, in my views, the argument has lot of f...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 126, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: If
...ument throws an ambiguous term predict. if one takes chestnut county as a model on...
^^
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...rices will increase. To sum up, the arguments ineffectiveness can be attributed to de...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, thus, well, whereas, for example, for instance, such as, as well as, in my view, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1950.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27027027027 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97145415749 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.556756756757 0.468620217663 119% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 54.1711149534 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.631578947 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4736842105 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.47368421053 5.70786347227 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.069540678824 0.218282227539 32% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0226285372505 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0285875162054 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0382150492 0.128457276422 30% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0267278398591 0.0628817314937 43% => 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: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.