The editorial recommends that Clearview residents should vote for Ann Green, who is a member of the Good Earth Coalition, rather than Frank Braun, who is a member of the Clearview town council, in the next mayoral election in order to solve the environmental problems of Clearview. To support his recommendation, the editorial tells that the current members of the Clearview town council failed to protect the environment, and the local hospital has treated 25 percent more patients with respiratory diseases during the past year, and that the number of factories in Clearview has doubled, increasing the air pollution. Stating in this way, this argument fails to mention several key points that are needed to evaluate the argument, and blindly relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence, making this argument weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, the editorial readily assumes that increased air pollution is a consequence of doubling the number of factories. It is entirely possible that the factories increased during the period environmentally sustainable, and the increased air pollution is caused by other things that emit pollution causing materials such as motorbikes, cars, or other vehicles. Without providing any pieces of evidence that prove attribution of the increased air pollution to the increased factories one cannot make such a strong claim.
Secondly, the editorial assumes that the increased treatments of patients with respiratory diseases are due to the increase in respiratory diseases. Perhaps, the treatments increased because the town council builds new hospitals in Clearview, or maybe the facilities in the existing hospitals have increased, attracting more patients. If either of these case proves to be true, then the argument stated above is significantly weakened.
Thirdly, the editorial also assumes that Frank Braun will fail to solve the environmental problems as a mayor. Failing as a member of the town council does not necessarily mean that he will also fail as a mayor. Perhaps he has not had enough authority to encounter environmental problems. If this is the case, he is might even a better candidate to become the mayor. The editorial also assumes that Ann Green will solve the environmental problems once she becomes the mayor. One's failure does not necessarily indicate another's success. So even if the current town council fails to protect and solve the environmental problems, there is no evidence that Ann Green, as a mayor, will surely be successful in solving the environmental problems. If the above is true, then the editorial's argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is flawed and unconvincing for the above-mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the editorial clearly mentioned all the relevant facts and evidences to substantiate assumptions that Ann Green will, surely, solve the environmental problems once she becomes the mayor, and that Frank Braun will not be successful in doing so. To asses the merit of his/her argument, I'd also like to know that increased respiratory diseases is attributable to the increased air pollution caused by the increased factories during the past year. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 520 350
No. of Characters: 2728 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.775 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.246 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.973 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 202 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 89 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.409 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 476, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: One's
...al problems once she becomes the mayor. Ones failure does not necessarily indicate a...
^^^^
Line 7, column 773, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'editorials'' or 'editorial's'?
Suggestion: editorials'; editorial's
...roblems. If the above is true, then the editorials argument does not hold water. In con...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 433, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: I'd
...To asses the merit of his/her argument, Id also like to know that increased respir...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2793.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 518.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39189189189 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04391673804 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455598455598 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 853.2 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.0249537213 57.8364921388 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.0 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6666666667 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.85714285714 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194857253188 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591099027318 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.130193678616 0.0701772020484 186% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110985968696 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135509685554 0.0628817314937 215% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 28.5 12.3882235529 230% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.