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."
The assumption of the author in this memo about new factories are staffed more non-resident workers than Dillton residents sounds illogically unconvincing fore several reasons. The author ignores important information and some question needed to be answered in order to decide about author’s conclusion.
First question is raises from the scant statistical information the rate of unemployment, which is define as number of unemployment people on all population. The author does not give any information about the number of people, who lives in the city; hence he can not analyze the rate of unemployment. It is entirely possible entire works in two factories are Dillton residents, while the number of them is too low to change the rate of employment. In addition, many students graduated from the university inters in group of unemployment people. Of course, the author must consider this possibility that many people move in the city after establishing the factories, which increase the population. In short, since the argument relies on the limited statistical information, the author’s result is not acceptable.
Second, the author does not mention the number of factories, which are closed in these years. If some of factories, which were in the city, are closed or at least decrease their labors, because of the economic condition. As a result, the number of unemployment people will be increased while new factories are establishes in the city and they hire about 1000 workers. Therefore, if the author does not more information about the number of factories in the city is closed during this time, the argument is flawed.
In the third place, the author relies in the assumption that decreasing tax can attract companies. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible the amount of original tax was so high that decreasing it by 15 percent is not attractive for companies. In addition, the location of this might not appealing since if it is in remote place then transportation costs of goods might be considerably high.
In sum up, the argument is flawed rationally and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more statistical information about the number of workers in the factories, and those are added to group of unemployment people recently. To evaluate better the author’s assumption, we must know about all effective factors on the economic growth.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 100, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'defined'.
Suggestion: defined
...tion the rate of unemployment, which is define as number of unemployment people on all...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 98, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the factories') or simply say ''some factories''.
Suggestion: some of the factories; some factories
...es, which are closed in these years. If some of factories, which were in the city, are closed or ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 514, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ring this time, the argument is flawed. In the third place, the author relies in...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'hence', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'while', 'at least', 'in addition', 'in short', 'of course', 'as a result', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256235827664 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.136054421769 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0816326530612 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0521541950113 0.0520304965353 100% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0226757369615 0.0272364105082 83% => OK
Prepositions: 0.156462585034 0.125424944231 125% => OK
Participles: 0.031746031746 0.0416121511921 76% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.04750757928 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0136054421769 0.026700313972 51% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.120181405896 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0181405895692 0.0255425247493 71% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0113378684807 0.0127820249294 89% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2435.0 2731.13054187 89% => OK
No of words: 387.0 446.07635468 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.29198966408 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.392764857881 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.286821705426 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.22480620155 0.208842608468 108% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.170542635659 0.135150697306 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04750757928 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 207.018472906 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.480620155039 0.469332199767 102% => OK
Word variations: 51.3778846963 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 27.5463694366 57.7814097925 48% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.277777778 141.986410481 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.888888888889 0.724660767414 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 50.1821705426 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 2.10752688172 1.8405768891 115% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.405509055171 0.441005458295 92% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.15487169042 0.135418324435 114% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0573978469531 0.0829849096947 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.655260292621 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.0840204011834 0.147661913831 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.192907273849 0.193483328276 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0522515281278 0.0970749176394 54% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.433626612339 0.42659136922 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.146126000283 0.0774707102158 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.285872717189 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0520975039117 0.0698173142475 75% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: This is not the final score. 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.