The following appeared in a newsletter to Canbury’s residents from the president of
Plexma Motors.
“I am pleased to announce that Plexma’s new manufacturing site is on schedule to open
next year. In addition to our regular line of cars, Plexma has also begun designing and
testing a line of automated self-driving vehicles. In a recent survey conducted by the
Canbury Gazette, 60 percent of residents reported that they would purchase a Plexma selfdriving
vehicle in the future if they were confident in the vehicles’ safety. We are happy to
report that last summer, we tested our new line of self-driving vehicles in downtown
Canbury with great success. Not only did our five tested vehicles remain accident-free for
two months during testing, but in a survey conducted after testing, 90 percent of
Canbury’s residents reported that when they were downtown and our vehicles were in
operation they felt very safe. Because steady demand for our self-driving vehicles will
create new jobs and thereby greatly benefit Canbury’s economy as a whole, I recommend
that you vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling these vehicles in
Canbury when our new site opens.”
The president of Plexma Motors tries to convince Canbury's residents to vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling self-driving vehicles by means of several reasons. In particular, he makes use of a number of surveys to point out how the locals are positive toward the safety of the vehicles and how they will be favoured by consequently new jobs in Plexma. Unfortunately, he fails to prove his argument because of a noticeable quantity of flaws and holes in the reasoning chain. For instance, there is a superficial use of percentages and of certain "quantity" terms and, at the same time, some parallelisms are not justified by any concrete evidences. For these reasons, to effectively assess the trust-worthiness of the argument, we would need the necessary information to answer to several questions.
To begin with, numbers. Throughout the entire argument there is a substantial focus on percentages. In the author's reasoning, 60 percent and 90% are crucial elements for his aims. While this could concretely be the case, to infer the cogency of these data we need the bases of the percentages. What is the number of citizens of Canbury? And, more specifically, how many of them have been surveyed? If, for instance, the surveyed individuals proportion was not momentous as compared to the entirety of the population, then the whole argument would result weakened or, at least, non-empowered by this specific passage in the letter of the manager. A similar theoretical mistake has been done as regards the 90 percent that reported to have felt safe during the tests. The circumstances are very specific: it is about Canbury's residents that were downtown during the tests. How many were they? Again, it seems legit to consider this evidence as crucial to seriously evaluate the importance of these facts.
On the other hand, there is an opaque connection between new jobs and, "thereby", greatly benefits in Canbury's economy. As a matter of fact, it has been assumed that Canbury is lacking job places. However, we are not given any useful specification about this. Is Canbury really wanting new jobs? It could be, on the contrary, that the only economical problem, at the moment, is the necessity of a more expanded market, or, it could be the high demands of primary resources. In other words, there are a plethora of possible circumstances and occurrences that would prove this connection totally non-lucid and irrelevant to the argument.
What is more, there is a weird passage in the argument that does not sound compelling at all. In fact, the author qualifies the surveys on the safety -feelings of the citizens as operated during summer. Hence, it is easy to argue that these researches are not really influent and germane. We cannot, for example, avoid considering the possibility that Canbury is a place almost inhabited during summer, thus preventing the surveys to have a sufficient base of people analyse. Or, on the contrary, Canbury could be so touristic during summer that, incontrovertibly, most of the surveyed individuals have nothing to do with the citizens of the town. Answers to these doubts are to be given to really make the argument coherent.
In conclusion, it is evident that the author did try to give an explanation for his observation on the viability of the manufacturing and selling of the proposed vehicles, that is, that citizens of Canbury should vote in favour of it. Nonetheless, he failed to consistently back his argument up, thus neglecting to furnish the necessary qualifications and data to deeply strengthen his reasoning. It could of course be the case that the president of Plexma Motors holds true in his words, but he is required to make further researches to be more compelling and to make sure he is not somewhat erring in his analysis.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. better to say: two month testing is too short. and people may not realize self-driving vehicles.
argument 2 -- not exactly
argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
I recommend that you vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling these vehicles in Canbury when our new site opens.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 633 350
No. of Characters: 3086 1500
No. of Different Words: 292 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.016 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.875 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.869 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 222 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.419 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.245 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.645 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.237 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.414 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, hence, however, if, nonetheless, really, so, then, thus, while, as regards, at least, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in particular, of course, as a matter of fact, in other words, on the contrary, to begin with, what is more, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 102.0 55.5748502994 184% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3204.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 633.0 441.139720559 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.06161137441 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01592376844 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05357721942 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 305.0 204.123752495 149% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.481832543444 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 1029.6 705.55239521 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 16.0 4.96107784431 323% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 15.0 4.22255489022 355% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.0248068834 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.35483871 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4193548387 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.09677419355 5.70786347227 159% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113280576282 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0278182823503 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0487959583814 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0689169717193 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0545314964434 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 160.0 98.500998004 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.