In the letter, the committee in Deerhaven concludes that they should adopt their own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres. To support the new policy, the committee cites the evidence that homeowners in nearby Brookville succeeded in adopting a set of restrictions and their average property values tripled seven years ago, which seems at first glance a cogent case, however, a clear inspection reveals that this conclusion is rite with groundless assumptions, which weaken the proposed policy in the letter.
Firstly, the committee commits a fallacy of a false analogy that implementing the similar policy will boost up the economy of Deerhaven. The committee fails to take into consideration a variety of alternative explanations that will rival the policy. First of all, the policy adopted by nearby Brookville community might not equally apply to Deerhaven community, because any policy has to follow the pace of community development and meet the demand of local residents. In addition, many factors that could influence property value may change during these years, such as the above-mentioned regulations on landscaping and the colors of exteriors of home. It is not thoughtful for the committee to hastily take similar measures for an unpromising future. In short, without ruling out these possibilities, the policy is unpersuasive as it stands.
Secondly, the committee overlooks the feasibility of carrying out the policy in the Deerhaven Acres. For one hand, the committee fails to provide any evidence that this policy is voted by all the residents in Deerhaven and they all approve the new method unanimously. There is a strong likelihood that some of the local residents are unwilling to change the color of their house and reconstruct their front and back yards. There is another possibility that some historical sites are protected and preserved by the local government and national government. For another hand, even though all of the people in Deerhaven agree with the policy, the difference of the geological condition is needed to be evaluated. Without considering those probabilities, the proposed action may not be effectively executed and the conclusion still remains untenable.
Thirdly, the committee fails to think about the cost of reconstructing the community and undesired consequences as it follows if Deerhaven community adopts the set of restrictions. For example, the committee needs to recruit some professional geologists who can measure the overall condition of the mud, some distinguished historians who are capable of evaluating the price of historical sites and some hardworking architects who are responsible for reconstructing the present housing structure. There will be a huge amount of cost needed to pay if they adopt the policy. If it is true, who is in charge of raising those money and funds to support the event. Without those thoughtful evaluation, the proposed policy may not be as feasible as it applied practically seven years ago.
All in all, in order to boost up the economy of the community, properly adjusting some changes and adopting some new and practical policies might contribute to a success. However, unless the committee could give the answers to those questions and provide more cogent evidence to support those assumptions, the argument still remains dubious at best.
Essay evaluation report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 538 350
No. of Characters: 2815 1500
No. of Different Words: 249 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.816 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.232 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.936 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 210 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 167 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 98 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.619 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.764 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 303, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...usly. There is a strong likelihood that some of the local residents are unwilling to change...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 587, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...vernment. For another hand, even though all of the people in Deerhaven agree with the poli...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 616, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this money' or 'those moneys', 'those monies'?
Suggestion: this money; those moneys; those monies
...it is true, who is in charge of raising those money and funds to support the event. Without...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, as to, for example, in addition, in short, such as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2879.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 538.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35130111524 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99856529773 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 204.123752495 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46468401487 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 917.1 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.5425826936 57.8364921388 125% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.095238095 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.619047619 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.90476190476 5.70786347227 138% => 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 : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.238950945111 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0661532885866 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0756239127166 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133090232151 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709028495518 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 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: 8.99 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => 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.