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 es

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.”
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 argument states that the Smith Corporation should not be permitted to build a hotel on the land which is now a part of Youngtown Wildlife Preserve as it would harm the 300 bird species that live in the sanctuary. There are lot of assumptions taken by the environmental protection group which needs to be clarified before the residents of Youngtown decide their stand.

The petition says that the sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. Only a small percentage of the land is going to be sold. So it is possible that the hotel being built would not harm the birds. It may be that the birds do not live near the area where the hotel is to be built. The argument assumes that the hotel would surely harm the sanctuary but on what basis? How will it harm the birds? The argument only states that is will have disastrous consequences but it does not say in what way. If the argument had stated these things, the argument would have been more convincing.

The argument assumes that if the Smith Corporation builds the hotel it will harm the sanctuary. But it could be possible that instead of harming it would help the sanctuary and Youngtown. The argument does say that Youngtown depends on tourists who visit primarily to see the magnificent bird population so if a hotel is built in the sanctuary, then it could be that more tourists visit the sanctuary as they can observe more birds if they stay in the hotel. If this does happen it would help Youngtown and the sanctuary instead of harming it.

The petition also says that Smith Corporation has promised to ensure preservation of the sanctuary. But the environmental protection group assumes without proof that they will not be able to do so and the hotel would harm the community. Had the environmental protection group given reasons why the Smith Corporation would not be able to keep their promise, the argument would have been stronger.

There are a lot of assumptions taken by the environmental protection group for the petition, so these assumptions need to be clarified before the residents decide their stand.

Average: 5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, so, then

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1782.0 2260.96107784 79% => OK
No of words: 373.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.77747989276 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65922012521 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 138.0 204.123752495 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.369973190349 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 527.4 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9145016915 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.0 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7222222222 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.55555555556 5.70786347227 27% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259131973225 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.093344640912 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.074119853275 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172676565532 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0893558081466 0.0628817314937 142% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 68.1 48.3550499002 141% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.44 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 6.58 8.32208582834 79% => OK
difficult_words: 46.0 98.500998004 47% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?


Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.