In the given memo, the mayor of Brindleburg argues that building a golf course and resort hotel in Brindleburg will generate tax revenue similar to Seaside Vista which can be used for public improvements. In order to augment his argument, the author provides the evidence that Seaside Vista tourism board has seen 20 percent increase in visitors and that its banks have seen a steep rise in loan applications. The author also states that the tax money collected in Seaside Vista has also increased. This series of evidences have led the author to believe that building a similar golf course and resort in Brindleburg will reap profits which can used for public welfare. However, the litany of unsupported assumptions seriously jeopardises the certainty of the argument.
The biggest leap in the argument is the assumption that a similar golf course and resort in Brindleburg will bring in more revenue. It is possible that the location of Seaside Vista and its verdant regions are responsible for drawing the attentions of tourists. Seaside vista may have sea beaches which Brindleburg may not offer, thereby rendering the whole argument moot. Building a resort in Brindleburg may not offer the same scenic beauty which is enjoyed by the vacationers in Seaside Vista. Development of a golf course in the possibly dry and arid regions of Brindleburg may be detrimental to tourism.
Secondly, the author readily assumes that the golf course and the resort are the only reasons for tourist attraction. It is possible that another obscure factor may be responsible for the increase in the number of tourists. Probably, because of the development of the golf course and the resort, the beaches are kept more clean and the market for handicrafts has flourished. The visitors are possibly more attracted to the clean beached and the artistic attractions in the street markets.
Furthermore, it is nowhere stated that the twenty percent increase in visitors has increased the revenue collected from the tourism industry. The argument falls flat because of this assumption. This is merely an assumption without solid ground.
In addition to the above assumptions, the author makes a seriously flawed assumption that the number bank loan applications for new businesses have increased due to the development of the golf course and resort. There are too many unexplored variables present in this assumption. Are the new businesses which have applied for load related to tourism? It is possible that builders are interested in developing new housing societies and are applying for a load for the same. In the prescience of new residents coming in, entrepreneurs may have applied loans for new businesses which cater to residential interests.
This brings us to the final assumption. The author makes another unconvincing assumption that the taxes collected in Seaside Vista have increased due to the presence of golf course and resort. It is possible that the taxes levied on goods and services have increased leading to increase in tax revenue. For instance, if the tax rates on property, food and clothing increase, the tax revenue collected will see a rise and this is nowhere germane to the tourism industry.
There are a number of variables that need to be examined before concluding that the plan is likely to achieve the stated goals without resulting in unintended consequences. In order to make the argument cogent, the author must conduct a survey and explore all the variables that could have led to prospering of Seaside Vista. The author must propose a research team which can get feedback from tourists regarding their interest in the region of Brindleburg. He should explore the natural surroundings on Brindleburg and use it to the advantage rather than mimicking a plan that worked in some other place. With such confirming evidence, the argument begins to cohere.
In conclusion, the author presents an interesting but flawed argument. It is not persuasive but it can be bolstered by the presence of concrete evidences collected using surveys, feedbacks and hypothesis analysis. With this information in place, the author's conclusion becomes not just plausible, but convincing. Without it, the argument is bereft of its critical foundations.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
No. of Words: 687 350 //some arguments are duplicated. 3 arguments are enough.
----------------------
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: 33 15
No. of Words: 687 350
No. of Characters: 3500 1500
No. of Different Words: 274 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.12 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.095 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.74 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 275 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 215 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 147 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.784 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.424 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.277 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 8 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 15, column 251, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...is. With this information in place, the authors conclusion becomes not just plausible, ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, for instance, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 30.0 16.3942115768 183% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3586.0 2260.96107784 159% => OK
No of words: 687.0 441.139720559 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21979621543 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.11963717896 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82595250413 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 204.123752495 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.416302765648 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1112.4 705.55239521 158% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.1759376741 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.457142857 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6285714286 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.28571428571 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.15768463074 155% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 8.20758483034 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.216038151426 0.218282227539 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0568144226748 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.064240893256 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100991330422 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0817401543985 0.0628817314937 130% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 167.0 98.500998004 170% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.