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 letter in report delineates that "the distribution of budget for public education differs from city to city." The evidences and assumptions taken in the argument are : Firstly, public schools runs majorly on the tax that comes from that respective city, second is the evidence: that parson city spend twice as much as blue city spends, third is also an evidence regarding number of residents and lastly the assumption that, parson city gives much more importance on providing good education in public schools than blue city does. The assumptions and evidences provided seems to be logical and coherent at first glance, but giving it a second glance explores many loop holes and gaps. Neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling.
As stated above that argument has many loop holes and gaps, the major one is : the letter here has no evidence regarding the population of children in both the city. It can be like Parson city has more number of students and Blue city would have less than it. The letter here has no description on division of population, Blue city can have more number of working people and less number of students so the city government would focus more on working people than students.
It can also be blue that student in Parson city are more interested in study rather than extra curricular activities, and students in Blue city have more interest in extra curricular activities than study.
The letter also has no description about the amount of tax revenues, it can be the case that people in Parson city pay more amount of tax and resulting in more fund with the government to spend after effectively prioritizing other issues which have greater importance respect to education. While Blue city would be having the problem regarding the fund and would have more important issues to be tackled.
The letter here has no description about the literacy rate in bot the city. The citizens of Parson city would have low literacy rate and need more funding for education and its related activities, while the Blue city have high literacy rate so they would be little less concerned with the funding regarding education.
The letter above presented has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. Had the writer taken the above mentioned points into consideration, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. The points like population distribution of city, amount of tax collected and the literacy rate are needed to be added in the letter to strengthen the argument. But whatever is presented fails to provide a holistic picture to the superfluous claims being made.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ith the funding regarding education. The letter above presented has comfortably ...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'lastly', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'while']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.30021141649 0.25644967241 117% => OK
Verbs: 0.158562367865 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0887949260042 0.0836205057962 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0443974630021 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0169133192389 0.0272364105082 62% => OK
Prepositions: 0.122621564482 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0528541226216 0.0416121511921 127% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.63925077182 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0190274841438 0.026700313972 71% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.101479915433 0.113004496875 90% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0232558139535 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0105708245243 0.0127820249294 83% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2644.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 439.0 446.07635468 98% => OK
Chars per words: 6.02277904328 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.343963553531 0.378187486979 91% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.239179954442 0.287650121315 83% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.193621867882 0.208842608468 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.136674259681 0.135150697306 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63925077182 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 207.018472906 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.421412300683 0.469332199767 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 45.8163472677 52.1807786196 88% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 29.2666666667 23.2022227129 126% => OK
Sentence length SD: 116.942607006 57.7814097925 202% => The lengths of sentences changed so frequently.
Chars per sentence: 176.266666667 141.986410481 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2666666667 23.2022227129 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 53.1846621109 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 2.16346153846 1.8405768891 118% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.543464719675 0.441005458295 123% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.171318154562 0.135418324435 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.111646940988 0.0829849096947 135% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.676015397866 0.58762219726 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.190398743903 0.147661913831 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.252384088014 0.193483328276 130% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.129991505279 0.0970749176394 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.361753765763 0.42659136922 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.103547041514 0.0774707102158 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.352901479641 0.312017818177 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110882547473 0.0698173142475 159% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.