The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
A petition was sent by environmental protection group to residents of Youngtown. A part of which suggests that Smith Corporation should not be allowed to develop the land that is a part of Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is famous for their magnificent bird population and is an essential reason for survival of 300 bird species that live in Youngtown. The prompt suggests that no matter what the situation is, the plans of Smith Corporation to build a hotel in the allotted small part of land will cause only harm to the community which relies on tourists who visit Youngtown to see aesthetic beauty of birds and their habitats. Before agreeing to this petition, few questions must be answered.
Firstly, it is mentioned that a very small amount of land will be sold to Smith. It is necessary to investigate the population of birds and density of trees in that area. If bird population is lees and if paucity of trees is witnessed, then there is no harm in selling the land to Smith and allowing him to develop the land. In addition to this, methods of developing the land are not mentioned. It us true that using heavy machinary like cranes will disturb the entire habitat of the sanctuary, but if the company is promising not to breach the environmental restrictions, then it might employ a development technique which is friendly to birds community. There is no suffecient evidence which depicts disastrous consequences of development of small area of land in the sanctuary.
Secondly, it is mentioned that the Youngtown community relies on tourists who primarily visit there to see bird population. If the company is proposing to build a small hotel on the given land, it can be seen as an accomodation for the tourists. If the hotel is well suited for tourists to come and relax after wandering in the sanctuary, it will not only be beneficial for Youngtown, but also for the tourists as they will have a good place to refresh themselves. This win win situation is constantly being undermined by accuses of environmental damages which are advocated on the basis of insuffecient evidence. If the company is promising to preserve the sanctuary then this is an irrefutable deal which is beneficial for both.
Thirdly, if this hotel is built and ready then it will attract more tourists as the sanctuary will have readily available accomodation services for tourists who visit from different cities or states or even foreign countries. This way, the Youngtown community will gain more popularity and this will boost the tourism business.
In conclusion, it is evident that developing small area is innocuous if the company is promising to take care of all environmental restrictions which are needed to preserve sanctuary. If any corroborative evidence which breaches these restrictions is found, then the development must be stopped immediately. Till then, this plan of hotel is a good opportunity to attract abundance of tourists and have and benefit the Youngtown community.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 499 350
No. of Characters: 2452 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.726 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.914 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.875 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.253 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 516, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...at of the sanctuary, but if the company is promising not to breach the environmental restric...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 471, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: win
... good place to refresh themselves. This win win situation is constantly being undermine...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 630, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...f insuffecient evidence. If the company is promising to preserve the sanctuary then this is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 85, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... small area is innocuous if the company is promising to take care of all environmental restr...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, well, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2507.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02404809619 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95250576494 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438877755511 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 775.8 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.563065605 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.380952381 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7619047619 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.09523809524 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.311369989283 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.107483372672 0.0743258471296 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.102991476865 0.0701772020484 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176761279696 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125354151932 0.0628817314937 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.