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 council claims that the implementation of the measure to avoid the overdevelopment of the county will result in the increase in the housing prices in Maple County. Stated in this way, the argument fails to acknowledge diverse pivotal aspects, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. It reveals several instances of poor reasoning and weak anticipation. It tries to persuade the reader by distorting the view of the situation by manipulating facts and providing weak pieces of evidence and examples. In support of the stated conclusion, the author notes that there will be a significant increase in the housing prices in Maple county as there was in the Pine County under similar situation fifteen years ago. Nevertheless, careful scrutiny of the assumption reveals that it provides a little plausible support for author's conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered uncorroborated and incomplete.
First of all, the author effortlessly assuments that the statistics survey fifteen years back will be the same as in the present time. This is merely a belief made without much solid ground. For example, fifteen years back, Pine County was in the undeveloped state, so the adoption of the policy would have resulted in the acute need of houses to the population. But, in the present time, it is a developed state and technological advancement has helped the County to deal with the rising prices. The stages at which both the County's are present might be different hence would result in different outcomes. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated the precise circumstances when the Pine County has adopted the measures on residential housing.
The argument readily claims that preventing the development of existing farmland in the Maple County will increase the housing prices. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between the two aspects. For example, the growth in the population would become static over a course of a period in Maple County, thus the requirement of the new residences would not be as predicted. Therefore, prices will not increase significantly. If the argument has provided evidence about the population growth over a period of at least five years, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author correlates the result of the adoption of the measure in Pine County fifteen years back and the prediction of the results in the Maple County at present. However, careful examination of the assumption reveals that it provides a little plausible support and raises several skeptical questions. To illustrate, the population of the Pine county fifteen years back and the present population of the Maple county have not been studied by the author. The surface areas of both the County's is also neglected by the author. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with an impression that claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide concrete pieces of statistics and evidence, perhaps by a way of detail study of other factors. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about different comparative aspects of a county between Pine, Maple, and Chestnut.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: If the argument has provided evidence about the population growth over a period of at least five years, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Description: The token of is not usually followed by a preposition
Suggestion: Refer to of and at
Sentence: The surface areas of both the County's is also neglected by the author.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 560 350
No. of Characters: 2825 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.865 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.045 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.791 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.875 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.577 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 843, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ausible support for authors conclusion. Hence the argument can be considered uncorrob...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 608, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...nce would result in different outcomes. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 13, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, at least, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 106.0 55.5748502994 191% => OK
Nominalization: 38.0 16.3942115768 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3833.0 2260.96107784 170% => OK
No of words: 740.0 441.139720559 168% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17972972973 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.21564387372 4.56307096286 114% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85291330345 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 295.0 204.123752495 145% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.398648648649 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1202.4 705.55239521 170% => 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: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 33.0 19.7664670659 167% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.8146967206 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.151515152 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4242424242 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.18181818182 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.287479857864 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0795416410523 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148475949926 0.0701772020484 212% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134266581301 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.136119886088 0.0628817314937 216% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => 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: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 171.0 98.500998004 174% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.