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 asserts that Clearview should be a top choice for those planning for retirement. He has come to this conclusion based on decreases in housing costs at Clearview, lower than average taxes, and promises of new programs to improve schools, streets, and public services. Moreover, he argues that retirees in Clearview will receive excelllent care because there are more physicians present in the area than the national average. However, before evaluating the strength of this argument, three pieces of evidence must be evaluated.
First of all, the author must provide evidence as to why housing costs at Clearview have fallen. It is possible that the population of Clearview is declining. That is, many Clearview residents are moving out of the city and few are moving in, and the decrease in housing costs is an attempt to attract new residents. It is also possible that the decrease in housing costs is simply due to random fluctuations in the market during the past year. If any of the above are true, then these unrelated factors contributing to housing costs are insufficient reasons and should not be used as enticement for retirees.
Secondly, the author must demonstrate that the new programs will be of value to potential retiree's moving to Clearview. Perhaps the public services mentioned above include the expansion of gym equipment for body builders, skareboarding parks, and sprinting tracks. It is possible that most retirees are incapable of performing such physically demanding activities and therefore would not be able to utilize the public services. If this were the case, then the author would be providing a false incentive for potential retirees, as the new programs have no value for the elder population.
Lastly, the author must prove that the physicians at Clearview are all qualified. The author states that the number of physicians in Clearview is far greater than the national average. However, are all of these physicians certified and well-trained? Perhaps Clearview is an area well-known for having low hiring standards. If so, then it is possible that many uncertified or untrained physicians move to Clearview to build a career. If the above is true, then the author's argument does not hold water, as retirees in Clearview - although guaranteed a physician - may not receive the 'excellent health care' they were intiially promised.
In conclusion, the agument, at it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its lack of supporting evidence. If the author is able to provide the three pieces of evidence requested above, then it will be possible to fully evaluated the strength of his argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2156 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.037 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.731 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 168 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.381 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.758 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 465, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... career. If the above is true, then the authors argument does not hold water, as retire...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2220.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 428.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18691588785 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82007406628 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485981308411 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => 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
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.4827669862 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.714285714 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.380952381 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => 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: 0.18382069715 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0614316447407 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.067576246049 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107664540817 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0646753865321 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.