The following appeared as part of an article in the travel section of a newspaper:
“Over the past decade, the restaurant industry in the country of Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth. This
surge can be expected to continue in the coming years, fueled by recent social changes: personal incomes are rising,
more leisure time is available, single-person households are more common, and people have a greater interest in
gourmet food, as evidenced by a proliferation of publications on the subject.”
The author states that the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth over the past decade and that this surge is expected to continue in the upcoming years due to numerous factors fuelled by social changes within the country. In this, the author makes various unstated assumptions and hence his/her argument is weak and in its current form, the argument is flawed.
The author assumes that since the restaurant industry in Spiessa has experienced unprecedented growth over the past decade, it will continue to do so in the coming years because of social changes within the country. This is a very strong conclusion to make since various factors that are favourable to the citizens of Spiessa which make it possible for them to spend on restaurants now may not even exist in the upcoming years. If such factors are to put monetary pressure on the citizens, they might not even be able to afford the luxury of visiting restaurants. It is possible that a sudden recession might hit which might in turn affect the personal incomes of people. In such a situation, people might have to work overtime or do multiple jobs to maintain their expenses or even earn some money for personal expenses of greater importance than visiting restaurants. A recession might increase unemployment and make people go in debt which in turn will affect the rate at which people spend on restaurants. In such situations of recession, it will suddenly be difficult for people to have single households and it would be more economical for people to start sharing the households by sharing rent to save on monthly expenditures. People might thus cook their own food at home rather than eat at restaurants. Publications regarding recession and job opportunities might replace most of the publications about gourmet food.
Another major flaw in the argument is the assumption that only social changes within Spiessa are responsible for the growth in the restaurant industry. This assumption is not completely logical since the author fails to recognise other factors that might have contributed to the growth in the restaurant industry. Factors like increased tourism can contribute to the rise in people eating out at restaurants. Yet another factor that could have been contributing to an unprecedented growth in the restaurant industry could be the availability of good quality local produce of vegetables, fruits, etc which would be beneficial to the restaurant industry.
However, there is no proof for the surge in the restaurant industry to continue over the upcoming years as well. Just because there was a surge in the restaurant industry over the last years, does not mean that the surge will continue over time. The author can improve his/her argument by evaluating the other side of the argument and by considering more examples and factors that may contribute to a surge in the restaurant industry. The author fails to recognise this biggest flaw and fails to acknowledge the other side of the situation in writing his/her argument. Finally, in its current state however, the argument is flawed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: MAKE_SINCE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'sense'?
Suggestion: sense
...his is a very strong conclusion to make since various factors that are favourable to ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, hence, however, if, may, regarding, so, thus, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2605.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 509.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11787819253 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79610783279 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420432220039 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 809.1 705.55239521 115% => 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
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.6366479191 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.25 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.45 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179149896951 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580110087045 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0738241692252 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121551371298 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0292154678396 0.0628817314937 46% => 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: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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 -- 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: 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.