The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.
"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.
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.
This memo argues that compelling the residents in Deerhaven to obey some constraints and regulations to rococo their houses with the means of trimming their yards to fulfill this goal. To justify the conclusion the article’s author notes that amplifying the decorations of yard may cause to elevate the worth of properties of denizens. Close scrutiny this allegation, reveals that this cannot lead to credible support to the recommendation.
Nor does the mere fact that providing endless harmony and uniformity may cause prosaic life-style for the residents. Indeed, the scrivener underestimates the significance of sundry ideas and desires in different persons who may be more inclined toward the discordance not harmony. Or, they may have the penchant of pursuing their own interests not something that are imported to them. As a result, that propelling all citizens toward obey the restriction specified by the government to enact the same space and ambiance in the city may disregard the dimension of this famous proverb “variety is a condiment of each person’s life”. Yet, the memo contains no evidence to support this presumption.
As for the survey that the article cites embellishing the yards can be considered as one element which may result in augmenting the value of people’s properties. In contrast, what is ignored here, is the efficiency and application of those properties. To delineate, in spite of the predominance of sounding beautiful, the useful tool with tremendous applications can talk first in this case. For instance, it is critically essential to investigate the yield of one tool previous than purchasing that just because of its beauty. Hence, the commitment provides no logical document to endorse this thesis. To shed more light on this issue, good looks does not necessarily match good looking.
A threshold assumption upon which the recommendation relies is the expenditure of trimming the yards. To elucidate on, the more implementing decorations in one yard, the more prevalence of requiring money will be detected. The text omits the aspect of financial aspect of beatifying the appearance of houses and only puts more emphasis on pushing the residents to track and enact some rules leading to promote the looking of constructions. Nonetheless, not all groups of persons in Deerhaven can afford the inhibit cost of decorating; accordingly, only do those who can get rid of the poverty and fulfill the extravagant expenditure of altering the outter space of buildings follow this limitation issued by the government.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconviencing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must add the impact of various notions and interests of different people, lending helping hands to destitute persons to afford the cost of decorating and the last but not least, the text should highlight the importance of being helpful and user-friendly devices used in the gardens to increase the appearance of yards.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 294, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'elevating'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'cause' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: elevating
...fying the decorations of yard may cause to elevate the worth of properties of denizens. Cl...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 342, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: Scrutiny
...te the worth of properties of denizens. Close scrutiny this allegation, reveals that this cann...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 503, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...oups of persons in Deerhaven can afford the inhibit cost of decorating; accordingly, only d...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, hence, if, look, may, nonetheless, so, therefore, as for, for instance, in contrast, as a result, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2551.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34800838574 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10844563072 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 264.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553459119497 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 788.4 705.55239521 112% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.7937332502 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.55 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.85 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.7 5.70786347227 117% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0399287415973 0.218282227539 18% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0139305653276 0.0743258471296 19% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0219764425758 0.0701772020484 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0220249244933 0.128457276422 17% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0143081251363 0.0628817314937 23% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.7 14.3799401198 109% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.05 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.97 8.32208582834 120% => OK
difficult_words: 157.0 98.500998004 159% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.