The following appeared as a recommendation by a committee planning a ten-year budget for the city of Calatrava.
"The birthrate in our city is declining: in fact, last year's birthrate was only one-half that of five years ago. Thus the number of students enrolled in our public schools will soon decrease dramatically, and we can safely reduce the funds budgeted for education during the next decade. At the same time, we can reduce funding for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities. As a result, we will have sufficient money to fund city facilities and programs used primarily by adults, since we can expect the adult population of the city to increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
A recommendation by the committee planning a ten year budget for the city of Calatrava suggest that the funding budgeted for education during the next decade should be reduced. Such a step is bolstered by the evidence that the birth rate in Calatrava is decreasing. Moreover, it states that the city should pool more funds towards programs and facilities used by adults as it is predicted that the adult population will increase. The prediction as well as the evidences provided seem legible during the first read. Although, a close look unearths some discrepancies in the assumptions and the evidences that might prove the final prediction fallacious.
Firstly, the recommendation states that since the birth rate is decreasing over the past five years, it will keep on decreasing over the next decade. Such an assumption is completely baseless, moreover there is no evidence provided in the passage to back such a claim. Even if we assume that the birth rate will decrease over the next decade, it does not justify the plan that the funds towards education should be reduced. What if the students from neighboring cities come to Calatrava for education? This could mean that the education sector is a source of income for Calatrava and reducing the budget for education can lead to a loss of standard of education at Calatrava. Students would refrain form coming to Calatrava anymore and this could have detrimental financial ramifications on Calatrava.
Secondly, the arguer falsely attributes the use of athletic playing fields and recreational facilities only to kids. The arguer implies that since there would be less number of kids using recreational facilities, the funding towards these facilities can be reduced. What if the adults at Calatrava use the athletic playing fields as a form of physical activity? The reduction in funds could lead to a decline in the quality of athletic fields as wee as recreational facilities. As a result, it might infuriate the adults of Calatrava and prove the arguer's plan to be completely erroneous.
Lastly, the arguer suggests that since the number of adults would increase in comparison to the number of kids, funds should be diverted towards programs and facilities used by adults. The arguer fails to provide a conclusive evidence that the number of adults in Calatrava will increase over the next decade. What if the adults in Calatrava plan to move away to a different city? What if the kids that graduate from college find a more lucrative job outside Calatrava? Then it is likely that these kids will settle close to their new job location. Hence, it could mean that investing in city facilities and programs for adults would be a waste of money since there would be hardly any adult left in Calatrava to take advantage of such programs. Such a scenario would again call into question the arguer's prediction.
In sum, the arguer has failed to provide convincing evidences to back his claim. The evidences provided are dubious, as a result it cannot be categorically stated if the arguer's prediction would be a successful one.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2529 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.939 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.712 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.48 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.388 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.64 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.502 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 798, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...ario would again call into question the arguers prediction. In sum, the arguer has f...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 171, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...t cannot be categorically stated if the arguers prediction would be a successful one.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, well, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2581.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.041015625 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77578507049 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419921875 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 819.9 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.5189765319 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.24 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.48 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.154051942816 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0482727732219 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066950592225 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0863134356305 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0536789020462 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.