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.
A letter to the editor of Parson City's local newspaper suggests that the residents of Parson City place more emphasis on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do. In order to come up with such a conclusion, the author of the letter has provided evidence to back his claim. The evidence seem legible during the first read but a closer look could unearth possible fallacies in the reasoning behind the evidence. As a result, the conclusion drawn by the author of the letter could prove to be erroneous.
Firstly, the arguer implies that since more money is invested in public schools in Parson City, residents of the city place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools. Such a claim by the arguer has no concrete evidence to back it up. It could be possible that the reason why Parson City invests highly in their public schools is because students from other cities come to Parson City to seek education. These students could probably bring necessary financial revenue with them which could boost Parson City's economy. As a result, Parson City's heavy investment in public schools could be a way of attracting more kids and bolstering their revenue rather than the arguer's claim that people in Parson City put more emphasis on good education.
Secondly, the arguer implies that since Blue City invests considerably less, when compared to Parson City, the residents of Blue City do not place much value on good education. Again, such a claim has no categorical evidence to back it up. It could be possible that the reason why Blue City does not invest in their public schools is because there are not enough kids that attend public-schools in Blue City. It could be possible that children in Blue City immigrate to other cities in search for quality education. Such a behavior by the residents of Blue City does not imply that they do not value good education, rather, it could be their longing for good education which drives them to better educational institutions. And as a result, it would be quite understandable why Blue City does not invest as much as Parson City in public-schools, but it does not necessarily state that Blue City provides less importance to better education.
Lastly, the arguer compares two cities from the region of Trillura, Blue City and Parson City. After comparing these two cities, the arguer asserts that Blue City residents puts less emphasis on good education than Parson City because they invest less money in public-schools. What if we discover a city that invests lesser money than Blue City in public schools. This would mean that Blue City residents are serious about good education imparted in public-school. Hence, the method used by the arguer to compare the resident's attitude towards public education could be a flawed approach.
In sum, the conclusion and the evidence that form it's basis are fallacious in nature. As a result, it leads it erroneous and dubious interpretations of the conclusion. Hence, it cannot be categorically ascertained if the arguer's conclusion is veritable.
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 518 350
No. of Characters: 2523 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.771 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.871 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 55 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.495 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.393 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.172 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'seems'.
Suggestion: seems
...vidence to back his claim. The evidence seem legible during the first read but a clo...
^^^^
Line 7, column 518, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'residents'' or 'resident's'?
Suggestion: residents'; resident's
...ethod used by the arguer to compare the residents attitude towards public education could...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 222, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...not be categorically ascertained if the arguers conclusion is veritable.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2575.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 518.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97104247104 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77070365392 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66362048862 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.38416988417 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 801.9 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5198682584 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.956521739 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5217391304 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.4347826087 5.70786347227 60% => 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 : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.332465210173 0.218282227539 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.123724175908 0.0743258471296 166% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111878809009 0.0701772020484 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.206289029627 0.128457276422 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108613390526 0.0628817314937 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.56 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => 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.