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.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The argument claims that proposed measure to fight underdevelopment of Maple County is thwarting the growth of it's farmlands. However, such proposed measures could increase the price of housing. Stated in this way argument fails to explain key factors on the basis of which argument could have been evaluated. The conclusion relies on several assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, argument readily assumes that preposed measure - limiting supply of new housing would preclude the burgeoning of existing farmland in the county. This is very weak and unsupported claim as argument does not demonstrate any corelation between proposed measure and development of farmland. It could be possible that such measures might actually conducive for farmlands in the county. For instance, if construction of a new housing is done on farmland, preventing such activities will retain the farmland and it would definetly contribute to development of farmland. While it is true that development farmland is an essential factor in advancement of a county, one cannot deny thatthere are other factors and development of farmland alone would not lead to development of entire county. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitely gave examples of how a proposed measure would avert the advancement of farmland which in turn leads to County's underdevelopment.
Second, the argument claims that restricting the number of new housing could lead to major increase in the price of housing in the county. However, there is no evidence to support this argument. On the other hand, to advocate restriction on new housing, argument relies on data collected ten years ago by Chestnut County which has showed only slight improvement in housing prices. On the other hand, to oppose this measure, argument once again relies on an old data gathered abvout fifteen years ago which has showed a significance increse in its housing prices. This claim is incorrect because both the data presented here are old and many things might have changed during those years. Moreover both the evidence do not speak about how it would support or oppose development of a county. In addition to this, argument fails to provide evidences that by would reveal how Pine, Chestnut and Maple Counties are related so that similar measures taken in other counties would lead to development of this county. If the argument had provided all these facts, it could have been more convincing.
Finally, argument concludes that proposed measure would result in rise of housing prices in Maple County. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how restricting number of houses would elevate housing prices which in turn may lead to county's progress. Without supported evidences and examples of other similar County's success where regulating new houses have increased the housing prices and hence county has developed, one is left with the impression that claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result, this conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, argument is flawed because it assumes that regulating new farm houses would lead to increased housing prices county and there is no correlation between this assumption and council's main concern. It could considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess merits of a situation it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 321, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...llected ten years ago by Chestnut County which has showed only slight improvement...
^^
Line 5, column 689, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
... might have changed during those years. Moreover both the evidence do not speak about ho...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 230, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'strengthen'
Suggestion: strengthen
...ils main concern. It could considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the rel...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, while, for instance, in addition, in summary, as a result, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 41.0 16.3942115768 250% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2974.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 565.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26371681416 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87542086881 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78151806797 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442477876106 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 918.9 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8196695878 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.384615385 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7307692308 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.03846153846 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
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: 0.24689628666 0.218282227539 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760535668592 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.075405148811 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138188907165 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0863645084892 0.0628817314937 137% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 98.500998004 137% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.