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."
The author claims that the property value will increase in the Deerhaven Acres if the yard should be landscaped and the exteriors homes should be painted. Because the homeowners of the nearby Brookville community adopted this notion and their property value increased triple. However, the proposal contains some critical fallacies and will not accept if it fails to answer some assumption; moreover, the assumptions help to draw an accurate conclusion and reject the incorrect assumption.
Firstly, the community fails to take into consideration various alternate explanation about the policy. The adopted policy may not be applicable for the Deerhaven Acres because the demand of the resident will be different. The community did not specify clearly about the agreement with the local people and their opinion. Moreover, another possibility is that the position of the property may differ from the Brookvilla community. For example, if a place is situated near the front of the city where it has always high demand then property value will increase. But, in a remote location, the property values are not as high. So, the decision cannot take hastily because it depends on the future.
Secondly, the Deerhaven Acres may have different historical places which may be controlled by the government; so the government will be involved in this policy. Therefore, the policy should take into account in a way that this policy will not harm historical places. Thus, different geographical condition should be evaluated.
Thirdly, the community did not mention the cost involved with the policy. For instances, for interior beauty involving the landscape need to investigate the social quality and need a geologist. Moreover, for checking the historical places need a historian and finally, for designing the exterior homes and planning the house need an architect. However, to plan the overall policy needs a person who raises all the money and charges for the overall plan.
To conclude, the overall hypotesis is quite interesting but have some logical fallacy. So, the proposal required more information to validate. The policy may be accurate for the seven years ago but it is not accepted in the present time if the proposal fails to answerthe discussed assumption.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1860 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.167 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.646 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.473 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.85 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.289 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 27.0 55.5748502994 49% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1916.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32222222222 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7448042949 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513888888889 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 608.4 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.7878847064 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.2 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237762948258 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0745405363919 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0954988675468 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133028372112 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0943385698508 0.0628817314937 150% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.