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.
While it may be true that a decrease in birth-rates for a city may require reduced fundings in public education and increased fundings in adult facilities, the argument is not cogent enough to make such conclusions. The evidence provided by the author must be evaluated in order to determine the validity of the argument. If the evidence weakens the argument, then the entire argument proves unwarranted.
First, the author assumes that a declining birth rate in the city of Calatrava indicates that student enrollment in public schools will decline. The author provides evidence that last year’s birth rate was only one-half of five years ago. However, the evidence may be invalid. The author fails to indicate whether the birth rate five years ago was high or low. If the birth rate was 100, then only 50 were born last year. If the birth rate was 1000, then only 500 were born last year. Therefore, the author must evaluate whether a small or large number of births would be enough to determine reduced fundings in public education. If the evidence proves that the rate is higher, then it would weaken the argument to reduce fundings.
Secondly, the author assumes that an increased adult population is likely to happen due to a decrease in birth-rates. The author provides that because more adults use city facilities and programs, more funding must be implemented into their recreational activity. However, the author fails to provide sufficient evidence in regards to the adult population. Many adults may move out of the city and many adults with children may move into the city. There is a likelihood that the adult population may reduce overtime instead of increase. Therefore, the evidence weakens the authors argument since the implication that many adults use the city’s facilities and programs does not necessarily mean an increase in population. The author must draw a consensus of the population of adults throughout the years in the city of Calatrava.
Another assumption the author makes is that the reduction of fundings in one area would lead to sufficient money in another area. The author bluntly states that there should be reduced fundings in athletic playing fields and recreational facilities. While it may increase funding for adult facilities and programs, the author does not indicate how much money the city would be earning if they stopped funding athletic programs. If the funds are only a small amount, then it may not be sufficient enough to pay for the adult facilities and programs. Additionally, the author does not state whether or not citizens are less likely to use the athletic playing fields and programs. Therefore, the evidence weakens the argument that if the funds received were a small amount, then it would not be sufficient enough to pay for adult facilities and programs.
Evidently, the author’s argument lacks sufficient evidence in which the assumptions prove unwarranted. Unless the author is able to provide valid evidence of the child population, adult population, and amount in funds, then the entire argument proves weak and invalid.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 507 350
No. of Characters: 2533 1500
No. of Different Words: 177 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.745 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.996 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.556 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.435 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.353 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.121 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 322, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...or fails to provide sufficient evidence in regards to the adult population. Many adults may m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 574, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...se. Therefore, the evidence weakens the authors argument since the implication that man...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 589, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...Additionally, the author does not state whether or not citizens are less likely to use the ath...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, may, second, secondly, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2596.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12031558185 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67646246497 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.374753451677 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 826.2 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2156437526 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.8461538462 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.5 5.70786347227 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143936001416 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577242373532 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.086153629599 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0796601908896 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.09062555457 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.