The following appeared in a letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper.
"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
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 writer suggests that Parson City residents pay much more attention to education in public schools than Blue City dwellers because almost double fees invested compared to Blue City. Still, some musing over evidence before taking any action is first very much in order.
The author claims that Parson City puts education higher priority because Parson city invests nearly twice as much as Blue city in education even both of them have the same number of residents and tax incoming. It could be true that the salary of Parson City has a positive attitude toward education and the major of the city put the education as the highest priority in their budget plan. However, the number of the schools presenting in each city is unknown. For example, the number of schools in Parson City be triple time than one in Blue City and the average budget of Parson City received per school is actually lower than that of Blue City. In this case, Blue city has better budget per school and emphasizes more on education than Parson City. The author needs to provide the detailed school number of both cities to get more clear picture and make the argument more convincing.
Besides, the writer claims that higher education budget equals higher value on education in public school. That could be a factor if schools use the budget properly and the students benefit a lot from it. Still, we have no idea about how schools use the money on education and the detailed budget allocation plan should be provided by the author. For example, it is possible that the school in Parson City needs a large amount of money to rebuild the facilities of schools because there was a severe earthquake that happened and caused many buildings to collapse last year. Therefore, Parson City puts almost all of the money on the building reconstruction rather than the faculties, professors and better teaching material, which is really beneficial to pupils. The writer needs to provide evidence about the detailed budget usage to get more clear view to strengthen the argument.
Additionally, the writer declares the fact that twice budget allocated on education in Parson City compared to Blue city and that means more emphasizing on education. That could be right since the number of students in both cities are the same, so the budget allocated per student of Parson City is twice higher than the other. Yet, because we don’t know how many students in Parson City and Blue City, it could be a totally different story that the student number of Parson City is actually 4 times more than the other. Thus, the average distributed money per pupil of Parson City is much less than that of Blue City. The readers can’t believe in the content of the argument before the information about the number of the students in both city is presented.
In conclusion, there is lacking evidence mentioned above and the writer is recommended to provide them to make the argument more cogent.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2398 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.749 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.31 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.739 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.409 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.192 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...and make the argument more convincing. Besides, the writer claims that higher e...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 620, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...ear. Therefore, Parson City puts almost all of the money on the building reconstruction ra...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...clear view to strengthen the argument. Additionally, the writer declares the fa...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he students in both city is presented. In conclusion, there is lacking evidence...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, first, however, if, really, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2446.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 4.85317460317 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.36486296549 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.39880952381 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.0 705.55239521 111% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.5188464921 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.3 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317164511347 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128239767786 0.0743258471296 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0723043239887 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.178923361958 0.128457276422 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104655875351 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.15 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.54 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.