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.
In the argument, the committee of the city of Calatreva concluded that they can reduce funding for education during the next decadesa and can aslo reduce funding for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities, on the otherhand, they will have sufficient money to fund city facilities and programs used primarily by adults, since they can expect the adult population of th city increase. However, the author supports his conclusion with three unfounded assumptions, if refuted, will dramatically undermine the persuasiveness of the argumnet. Therefore, before evaluating the argument, three pieces of evidence need to collect and analyze.
Firstly, the author assumes that the decline of birthrate in this year will remain same as that of last year, and there is no evidence regarding the birthrate of the years before last year. It is possible that the this year or the upcoming year the the birthrate will increase and as a result, afte four years or five years the number of students will also increase, so in those years there will need more money for the educational and recreational facilities for the children. It is also possible that the years before the last year the birthrate was higher and perhaps, the five years ago before the last year the birthrate of the city was double than the normal birthrate of the city, so half of birthrate before five years, does not mean that the birthrate is declining. If any of the cases is true, then the committee recommendation is not valid and, therefore, weaken the argument.
Secondly, it may possible that the number of students will decrease, but the author presumes without any evidence that there was sufficient funding for the education in previous years. However, this may not be true. It is possible that there was a scarcity of budget during the previous years in education, as a result of the declination of birthrate, in near future the number of students will increase in near futute. The existing budget in education and recreation may be perfect and without any deficiency. Therefore, reduction in budget in these field will not be good recommendation for city. If the case is true, then the argument will not hold the water.
Finally, the author presumes that the athletic fields and other recreational facilities are not used by the adults, but this may not be necessarily true. It is possible that the fields and recreational facilities are using by the adults. It is also possible that in the city there is already have suffiecnt facilities and program for the adults. Thus, further investment on those fields will not be and effective one. The auhor also assumes that the adult population will increase in next ten years without any evidence. It is possible that the deathrate of the adult is already higher and will be more in the upcoming year, so there is no possibilities of increase of adult population. If any of the cases is true, then the author recommendation will not be overly persuasive.
In conclusion, as it stands now, the conclusion relies on the three unwarranted assumptions and make the argumnet specious and untenable. Therefore, the author should provide additional evidence regarding the assumptions to make the argument reasonable and unassailable.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 539 350
No. of Characters: 2658 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.818 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.931 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.721 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 117 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.702 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.909 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 211, Rule ID: DT_DT[2]
Message: Maybe you need to remove the second determiner so that only 'the' or 'this' is left.
Suggestion: the; this
...s before last year. It is possible that the this year or the upcoming year the the birth...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...that the this year or the upcoming year the the birthrate will increase and as a result...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...that the this year or the upcoming year the the birthrate will increase and as a result...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 629, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no possibilities'?
Suggestion: there are no possibilities
...d will be more in the upcoming year, so there is no possibilities of increase of adult population. If any...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2730.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 539.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06493506494 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81833721656 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81208967031 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.363636363636 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 865.8 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.6718344798 57.8364921388 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.090909091 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.18181818182 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.33568948397 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0856396237068 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117320185569 0.0701772020484 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.159902893017 0.128457276422 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.171786917276 0.0628817314937 273% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 20.5 12.3882235529 165% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.