In fall 2010, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) stepped up its security efforts in US airports by incorporating random full-body searches as part of its counterterrorism efforts. These full-body searches were a response to the refusal of some people to accept the use of full-body scanners, which were judged by some to be excessively revealing. The chief of the TSA and the secretary of state both stated that, while they acknowledge every citizen’s desire for privacy, this desire must be considered in balance with safety measures. However, whatever safety full-body searches provide is not a reasonable tradeoff for the invasion of privacy that citizens must now suffer, so the TSA must abandon such measures.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice 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 advice.
The argument that TSA should ease the strong counterterrorism measures introduced in the fall 2010 in order to respect citizens privacy may seem reasonable at first glance. However, some evidences provided are not that clear and some information should be added in order to strengthen the main claim. Therefore, the author of this advice should address some questions.
First, it is not clear how a random full-body searches works. No data are provided to make clearer the meaning of the word random and to understand the proportion of people who are controlled. On one side, if this number is too low, it would be not reasonable to maintain this additional policy. On the other side, in the opposite situation, if the number of controls done is extremely high, nothing would change from doing a mandatory one. As well as in the former situation, no benefits would be given by this new policy and, thus, it should be abandoned.
In addition, the author has to make clearer the will of the people. For instance, he stated that some people did not accept the use of full body scanner, but he did not mention their attitude about random full-body searches. This information will be crucial to understand whether the new system would be considered mostly as a solution to a previous problem or just as a new critical point. In order to answer this question, the author should make a survey in the USA airports asking the direct opinion of people who experimented both the systems. If people preferred the classical system of full-body scanner to the new system, this would another evidence that would support his thesis.
Furthermore, he needs to analyze whether these security measures are working well and if they are really needed in all the airports. In order to do that the change in numbers of terroristic attacks should be analyzed and in, particular, he should analyze the changes during the years in which the security system has changed. Moreover, he should catch some data in order to understand if such a terrorist precaution is really needed in the USA's airports. In order to do that he should make some reports about the number of attacks in the airports in the last years related to the overall amount. If this number was not that substantial the TSA would be able to ease the controls.
In conclusion, the author is not totally wrong in supporting the argument that the TPA should abandon the strict counterterrorism measures it has adopted lately. However, his reasoning has many weak points that should be strengthened by answering to some questions. First, he needs to clarify how the random full-body searches works and, in particular, he should underline what the word random means. In addition, he should collect travelers’ opinion about the new measure introduced and understand whether they prefer it to the former one. Last, he should provide more data about the terroristic attacks in the USA's airport in order to understand if this problem must be taken into serious consideration or not. Only when he would have answered to all these questions his reasoning will be completely correct.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 24 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2530 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.81 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.602 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.917 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.78 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 487, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...ning of random and it would become more as a mandatory one. As well as in the form...
^^
Line 5, column 309, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...r the new system would be consider more as a solution to a previous problem or jus...
^^
Line 7, column 567, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...st years related to the overall amount. If this number was not that substantial th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, really, so, then, therefore, thus, well, as to, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in particular, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2628.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 532.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93984962406 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66615841634 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436090225564 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 809.1 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6296476297 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.5 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => 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 : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.131064963491 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.044804614792 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0571787872371 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0807526591242 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0171981479935 0.0628817314937 27% => 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: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.