The following appeared in a magazine article about planning for retirement.
"Clearview should be a top choice for anyone seeking a place to retire, because it has spectacular natural beauty and a consistent climate. Another advantage is that housing costs in Clearview have fallen significantly during the past year, and taxes remain lower than those in neighboring towns. Moreover, Clearview's mayor promises many new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. And best of all, retirees in Clearview can also expect excellent health care as they grow older, since the number of physicians in the area is far greater than the national average."
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 author argues here that Clearview town is one of the best choice for retirees to live after retirement. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention many several keys on the basis it could be evaluated. In support of this suggestions fo the retirees, the author mention that this town has a wonderful natural beauty and consistent climate. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the wonderful natural and climate are the main advatage to choose the place for retirement. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, the existance of good services in the place has more importance than the climate and nature. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it had stated more information about the existing services like schools, streets, and other public services.
Secondly, The author cites that the mayor of clearview promises to do improvements to the existing public services. This may mean that the current residents are not satisfied with the current level of the services. If the services had been in satisfactory conditions to residents, then there is no need to announce for improvements.
Thirdly, The author noted that housing costs have fallen in the past year. He didn't mention the reasons behind that. There are many possibilities that we can assume. One of these possibilities, many residents leave Clearview and many houses have to be sold. If we consider this possibility, this may give an indicator that the author's recommendation is not valid and it is only a wishful thinking.
Finally, the author stated that the physician in the area is greater than the national avearge. This raises many skeptical questions. For example, What are the reasons for that? Is there many patients in this area which may mean diseaes pread out in Clearview? Without convincing answers to this questions, the argument can not be valid.
In conclusion, The author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands for. To bolster it further, the authors must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of detailed analysis. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about existing public services, the reasons behind falling housing cost.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author argues here that Clearview to...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 220, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s on the basis it could be evaluated. In support of this suggestions fo the retir...
^^
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...s it could be evaluated. In support of this suggestions fo the retirees, the author...
^^^^
Line 1, column 451, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors recommendation. Hence, the argument can...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...idered incomplete and unsubstantiated. First of all, the argument readily assum...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 313, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...importance than the climate and nature. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 79, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... costs have fallen in the past year. He didnt mention the reasons behind that. There ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 328, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ty, this may give an indicator that the authors recommendation is not valid and it is o...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 291, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...learview? Without convincing answers to this questions, the argument can not be vali...
^^^^
Line 6, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t can not be valid. In conclusion, The authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands f...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2044.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22762148338 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8056557408 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.50895140665 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 638.1 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.6701331649 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.76 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.64 23.324526521 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.174885239785 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508954137767 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0527312654371 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0918469953837 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0377934993985 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.