"Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that in order to preserve beaches sand from erosion people should pay some money for using beaches due to the fact that this money will help replenish beach sand. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which more well-established evidence should be given.
To commence with, the author contends that this erosion is a huge problem for tourists industry. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since, a question that might arise is whether tourists are really interested in beaches and they could bring a hoard of money for replenishing beach sand. One point that should be considered is that vast majorities of tourists like to use beaches with full facilities and without paying any charge. Indeed, the author does not show to the extent or how many percent of tourists willing to use beaches. Maybe the beaches are not in good situation, which could annoy people. It is also important to say that there are crowds of problem that threat tourist industry such as economic recession, political situation and so forth.
The author also allege that gaining money from tourists and people will provide an opportunity for island to replenish beach sand. Although it might seems tenable at face, it has some defects due to the paucity of evidence that would consolidate the premise the otherwise. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that there is not any information or even statistics to show that how many people use beaches every day, every week or even annually. Perhaps a few fraction of people and tourists prefer to use beaches. Alongside that, maybe they avoid from paying money in order to use beaches. As evidences in different countries shown it is incumbent upon government to support beaches financially owing to the fact that it’s a public place.
Finally, as set forth by the author replenish sand will protect building against severe storms along the shores. Nevertheless the rationale behind this premise could be challenges owing to an insufficient evidence to support if new replenished sand could protect buildings from storms in beaches. One point that should not go unnoticed is that in any situation building along shores will suffer from sand and storms and new sand could not solve the problem. Indeed, perhaps distance between buildings and shores is noticeable and storms and sand could not impact buildings. Or perhaps those severe storms do not happen regularly and in this case different ways would be effective instead of replenish sand such as building a barrier between shores and buildings.
Having scrutinized the premise, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some evidence, having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 480, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun fraction seems to be countable; consider using: 'few fractions'.
Suggestion: few fractions
... every week or even annually. Perhaps a few fraction of people and tourists prefer to use be...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 114, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Nevertheless,
...against severe storms along the shores. Nevertheless the rationale behind this premise could...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 206, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, well, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2402.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02510460251 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53672798763 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456066945607 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.8994525796 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.380952381 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7619047619 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.7619047619 5.70786347227 66% => 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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26087094555 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.083456752068 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.060467105058 0.0701772020484 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139030304133 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0830305522221 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.8 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.