The argument makes a number of unstated assumptions reagarding the value each city in Trillura region gives to education. Taken as whole, this unproven assumptions, if not hold true, seriously undermine the argument validity.
First of all, the argument does not provide any further justifcation of the causality relationship between the proportion of budget each city allocates to public schools and the level of priority they give to education. For one, just comparing the proportion of revenues driven to public schools in one year is not enough to assume that there is causality among this two facts. For example, Parson City may be a history of few expendings with public school and just recently, after population complains about the quality of the city-run public schools there the major dicided to allocate an annusual amount of budget for education. In fact, without an comprehensive statistical research of the budgetary allocation patterns in the cities of Trillura region it would be possible to make plausible assumptions regarding this causality relationship.
The argument also leaves some unanswered questions that makes the argument flawed. For example, no information was provided about the number of students attending schools in Parson City and in Blue City, but it is only stated that the cities have the same population. However, Parson City may have more young people than Blue City, what makes the fact that Parson City expended in education twice as much per year than Blue City. Also, even if both cities have the same student's population, they can differ in age distribution, what makes the demand for budget to education different among the cities. For example, Parson City may have younger students than Blue City, what would make the demand for new and safe facilities higher in Parson City. Thus, student's population stistics should be provided and carefully analyzed to make the argument reliable.
Finally, the argument assumes without warrant that the proportional budget allocated to education really impacts the quality of education. However, no further information is provided on how the increase in budget allocation has made education quality higher. This assumption, although intuitive, should be supported by research results that clear makes this connection. For example, an extra budget could be badly applied in education and afterwards no improvement in quality would be experienced.
To sum up, because the argument holds its basis in many unproven assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that Parson City residents realy give more value to education than Blue City residents do just because the proportional budget allocated to education in Parson City is higher than in Blue City.
- "A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertisin83
- Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and su75
- Technology, while apparently aimed to simplify our lives, only makes our lives more complicated.50
- Some people believe that government funding of the arts is necessary to ensure that the arts can flourish and be available to all people. Others believe that government funding of the arts threatens the integrity of the arts.Write 75
- Educational institutions should dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and su66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 650, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
... budget for education. In fact, without an comprehensive statistical research of t...
Line 3, column 650, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'comprehensive statistical research'.
Suggestion: comprehensive statistical research
... budget for education. In fact, without an comprehensive statistical research of the budgetary allocation patterns in...
Line 5, column 471, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'students'' or 'student's'?
Suggestion: students'; student's
...Also, even if both cities have the same students population, they can differ in age dist...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, really, regarding, so, thus, for example, in fact, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 16.3942115768 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2318.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 433.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35334872979 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56165014514 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75350288378 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464203233256 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.7729118408 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.352941176 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4705882353 23.324526521 109% => 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 : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217779195432 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0787795842788 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07631130662 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126625123809 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.076043609679 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 433 350
No. of Characters: 2260 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.562 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.219 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.682 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.471 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.824 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.596 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5