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."
In this letter, the author proposes an idea to increase property values in Deerhaven based on previous experience in Brookville. According to the author, since established regulations in Brookville about adorning yards and painting the exteriors of homes ensued by a rise in the average property values in Brookville, it would be a perfect solution to exploit in order to increase the property values in Deerhaven, too. However, the mentioned analogy is wanting in several aspects.
First of all, the increase in the value of houses in Brookville does not necessarily refer to the adopted restrictions. There could be a handful of other major reasons for the abrupt raise after the restrictions. For example, a couple of recreational projects could be started back at the time the community adopted the new rules. New pastime opportunities will attract more people and please the current residents according to which they would be convinced to stay rooted in their hometown and avoid migration. Besides, new infrastructure opportunities including railways, airports, secure roads and so forth can propel the growth of property value in a city. Thus, the author made his or her claim based on a quivering assumption.
Secondly, there are always conditions that can lead to specific results for a part of a country. To be more specific, a change in the value of the currency or the lack of construction materials resources somewhere near a region will affect the contrasting aspects of building a house. For instance, there might be a sudden plummet in the amount of iron or timber materials which resulted in an immediate growth in the value of houses. Furthermore, there might be an increase in the value of fuels for carrying the materials from other towns, too. As a result, there are other possibilities from diverse viewpoints for the rapid growth of the property values in Brookville, which could have nothing to do with the proposed legislation.
Thirdly, the author does not provide any reliable proof for his or her claim about the significant influences of novel regulations in Brookville. In fact, he or she fails to draw an authentic and solid relationship between his or her two sides of the comparison. The fact that some ventures had a particular outcome in one region serves no compelling reason to be successful in other areas, too. To put it simply, people of Brookville can possess distinct tastes in the appearance of their houses and might welcome the new rules. On the other hand, people of Deerhaven, might prefer some other features and have nothing in common with each other in taste and preference.
In conclusion, although the author’s suggestion may seem reasonable at first glance, it lacks significant extra information to be convincing enough. If he or she presented other data entailing the overall changes and improvements in the town since the restrictions have started, it could be more compelling. Otherwise, he or she did not consider other possible reasons for the phenomenon he or she explained.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 452, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...en, too. However, the mentioned analogy is wanting in several aspects. First of all, the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 570, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... On the other hand, people of Deerhaven, might prefer some other features and hav...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2557.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12424849699 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95240510718 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507014028056 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 793.8 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => 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: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.938063639 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.227272727 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6818181818 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.72727272727 5.70786347227 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0587197044954 0.218282227539 27% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0187224347488 0.0743258471296 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0267223682432 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0347527920041 0.128457276422 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0206486537742 0.0628817314937 33% => 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: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.22 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 98.500998004 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.