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.
While some of the arguments presented by the environmental group appear to be logically coherent, the assumptions that lead to their conclusion are definitely not well-founded. The environmental group assumes that the development proposed by Smith Corporation will have a deteriorating effect on the sanctuary but they provide no verified facts or proven data to buttress their position. As such, their claims are definitely ones to be frowned upon.
First of all, one might wonder, what percentage of the land will the Smith Corporation acquire? This is a vital question that needs to be answered for coming to any viable conclusion about the safety of the sanctuary. The environmental group mentions that only a small percentage will be sold. If the percentage of the land to be sold is negligible compared to the total area of the sanctuary, then this should have much of an effect on the wildlife. However, if the portion of the land sold constitute a major section of the sanctuary then this definitely will have an adverse effect on the survival of wildlife. Hence, one must know the exact amount of land that is being sold in order to decide whether such acquisition will be detrimental or not.
Furthermore, the environmental group assumes that the proposed development will have horrible consequence but they fail to mention any such phenomenon. As the company is only trying to build a small hotel, what sort of environmental implications can such construction potentially have? Without knowing the full extent of the effects of the proposed constructions, it is implausible to arrive a definite conclusion. For example, the noise caused by the construction process may drive away the bird species that live in the area. This will definitely be a huge cause of concern among the residents of Young-town. However, if the company can control their construction noise so as not to disturb the bird habitats, then there seem to be no logical reason to deny such constructions.
Moreover, the Smith Corporation has also promised to ensure the safety of the sanctuary. Whether they can deliver on their promise is an important factor in determining the sale of the land. The people of Young-town will have to consider the reputation of the corporation when deciding on whether the corporation is trustworthy or not. Without knowing the history of the corporation's activities one can not determine whether they will indeed ensure the preservation of the sanctuary. For instance, the people of Young-town, may have witnessed other such development schemes implemented by the Smith Corporation where they have ensured proper environmental safety and precautions. In such case, the Young town people will decide in favor of the sale.
Taking all of these into account, we can conclude that although the concern of the environmental group is a valid one, the arguments presented by them are rife with holes and full of unsubstantiated assumptions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2423 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.048 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.999 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.548 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 7, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
While some of the arguments presented by the environmenta...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 90, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Whether” 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.
... to ensure the safety of the sanctuary. Whether they can deliver on their promise is an...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, well, while, for example, for instance, sort of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2479.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16458333333 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06958576535 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.4625 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.3263848 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.681818182 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8181818182 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.22727272727 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => 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: 0.186832035621 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0617873795142 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0381326972887 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105938820092 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0484551333179 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.