The following appeared as part of a petition sent to residents of Youngtown by an environmental protection group:
In petition sent to residents of Youngtown, author concludes the Smith Corportation should not be permitted to develop the land that is part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve as they can do no good to the community which depends completely on tourists who visit to watch birds. The author's conclusion includes three main assumption which needs to be cleared up before the statement can be treated as veracious.
Firstly, it is assumed that the small portion of land sold to the Smith will be disastrous for the Youngtown Sanctuary but, it is not elaborated how? It can be the case that land purchased by the Smith Corporation is at the outskirts of wildlife sanctuary where no birds go as the land is barren in nature. If the previous example holds for the given assumption then it makes the argument weak.
Secondly, it is assumed that small hotel that will be built on that land will do more harm than good. However, there is no evidence backing up this claim. It is possible that, environmental protection group has some resentment with the smith corporation resultant of that is the petition. It can also be the case, that hotel will be beneficial for the bird population as there will be more food leftover from the hotel to feed the birds. If any of the two cases hold for this assumption then it will make the argument weaker.
Thirdly, author assumes that the hotel will do no good for the community which lives off of birdwatching tourists. Alternatively, it is possible that the hotel will provide a comfortable stay for the tourist which will eventually lead to more tourist attending the birdwatcing at Youngtown wildlife Sancutary. This will ultimately benefit the community of youngtown. If the previous case hold true for this assumption then it will make the author's argument weakest.
The argument made in the petition to youngtown residents is flawed with various assumptions and it requires evidence to justify it's claims. If author fails to address the assumptions, it will make the argument invalid.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1652 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.816 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.684 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 104 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.253 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.042 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 284, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... tourists who visit to watch birds. The authors conclusion includes three main assumpti...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 323, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'assumption' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'assumptions'.
Suggestion: assumptions
... authors conclusion includes three main assumption which needs to be cleared up before the...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 441, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r this assumption then it will make the authors argument weakest. The argument made ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 343.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93002915452 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74543632827 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 204.123752495 78% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.466472303207 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 508.5 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.2895880902 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.6875 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4375 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.125 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10444402672 0.218282227539 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0388513708276 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0624842209184 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0680490271768 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0445484080531 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.