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 essent

Essay topics:

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.

The petition sent by environmental group to the inhabitants of Youngtown expresses discontent about the land sale that is going to happen in near future. The environmental group asserts that the land buyer, Smith group is planning to construct a hotel and the construction will be harmful to a bird sanctuary which is present in that area. The environmental group predicts that, the hotel will have bad consequences rather than good ones and opposes the construction of the hotel. The argument seems reasonable at a cursory glance but detailed analysis reveals some loopholes. So, to examine the validity of the argument thorough analysis is needed.

The first assumption the author makes is, the area is home for 300 verities of birds. However, author fails to cite the source or information which led to this assumption. Even if the the author mentions the source, how credible that is? It could be possible that, the author is making his assumption based on 5 year old data and which may not be valid now. So, the author should provide data that proves his assumption that the area is actually a bird sanctuary. If, the area is no more a wildlife preserve the argument does not hold water.

Subsequently, one more assumption author makes is, the planned construction from Smith group will be harmful to the the area but fails to provide any evidence about this statement. To prove this fact, records about previous constructions of Smith group are needed. What if Smith group is actually good and always fulfills its promises? In this case the author's assumption will be wrong.

Next assumption the author makes is, the construction will not be useful for the area. But, the residents are not against it. There could be many benefits from this construction. What if some people in the area are unemployed and the Smith group plans to take some local workers? Unemployed people can work and earn some money and there by improving the economy. If the sanctuary is preserved, more and more tourists will visit and there by the hotel makes some profit. Author should provide some data or information to prove that his assumption is correct.

In a nutshell, the author fails to present cogent argument in front of the audience. The author must provide evidence to prove that his unstated and stated assumptions are correct invariably and by doing so he can make his argument more tenable. Without such evidence it is very difficult to say if the argument is correct or not. Thus, the Youngtown residents should think further on the letter from environmentalists before selling land to Smith group.

Votes
Average: 4.9 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 341, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...anctuary which is present in that area. The environmental group predicts that, the ...
^^^
Line 1, column 482, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... opposes the construction of the hotel. The argument seems reasonable at a cursory ...
^^^
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...n which led to this assumption. Even if the the author mentions the source, how credibl...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 181, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...n which led to this assumption. Even if the the author mentions the source, how credibl...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... the area is actually a bird sanctuary. If, the area is no more a wildlife preserv...
^^
Line 5, column 113, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ion from Smith group will be harmful to the the area but fails to provide any evidence ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 113, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ion from Smith group will be harmful to the the area but fails to provide any evidence ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 354, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...fulfills its promises? In this case the authors assumption will be wrong. Next assum...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, so, thus

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2171.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94533029613 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6914112009 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453302961276 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 658.8 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.5148885631 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 83.5 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8846153846 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.84615384615 5.70786347227 32% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.17995911783 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0536264659879 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0582829673564 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108565332587 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398238132529 0.0628817314937 63% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.3 14.3799401198 72% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.13 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 439 350
No. of Characters: 2111 1500
No. of Different Words: 193 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.577 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.809 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.885 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.21 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.489 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5