The following appeared as part of an article in a Dillton newspaper.
"In an effort to bring new jobs to Dillton and stimulate the city's flagging economy, Dillton's city council voted last year to lower the city's corporate tax rate by 15 percent; at the same time, the city began offering generous relocation grants to any company that would move to Dillton. Since these changes went into effect, two new factories have opened in Dillton. Although the two factories employ more than 1,000 people, the unemployment rate in Dillton remains unchanged. The only clear explanation for this is that the new factories are staffed with out-of-town workers rather than Dillton residents."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The notion that new factories mentioned are staffed with exotic workers is cogent at first glance. This is because Dillton's tax rate has declined into 15-percent and also provides generous relocation grants. It would attract more factories and create working chances. At the same time, the new factory has employed 1000 people. Nonetheless, the argument is filled up with logical mistakes and assumptions. And these defections cause other possible explanations. The details would be discussed below.
To begin with, the arguer assumes that the lower tax rate and relocation grants would effectively bring new factories. It is hard to deny the possibility that these friendly policy is less competitive with concerning some near regions' advantage. Other cities may have extraordinary traffic, low cost of employing workers and convenience for importing prime material. In this case, the friendly policy above is less possible to attract new factory which would bring more work opportunities. Hence, the argument above still needs more persuasive evidence to preclude this explanation.
Moreover, the arguer fails to prove the fairness of the unemployment rate. It is universally acknowledged that the method of carrying research could influence conclusion significantly. For instance, the government may let citizens who are walking on the street to fill their forms in a specific period when the majority of workers are working. In this condition, it is reasonable to draw the conclusion mentioned in the argument because the individuals who could walk on the street in working time have a high possibility of being unemployed. Therefore, the arguer should prove the validity of the conclusion above.
Finally, even though explanations above are precluded, the arguer still works worse with proving that new factories do not employ local people. It is equally possible that another big company has collapsed for business competition. And a lot of people lose their job for that. At the same time, the similar amount of residents are employed by new factories. In this condition, the unemployment rate may also unchanged.
To sum up, the argument is less cogent than seem for the lack of more information assistance. It is essential to glean more evidence to make the argument more persuasive and exclude other explanations.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 365 350
No. of Characters: 1917 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.371 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.252 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.794 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.208 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.225 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.267 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.468 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.032 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, so, still, therefore, for instance, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1979.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 365.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42191780822 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37092360658 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9019118073 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.534246575342 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 614.7 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1995370342 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.4583333333 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2083333333 23.324526521 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04166666667 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0718196737256 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0196234515317 0.0743258471296 26% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0297756762598 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.03769893775 0.128457276422 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0306554029872 0.0628817314937 49% => 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: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.56 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 12.3882235529 40% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.