This recommendation to reduce funding in education, athletic fields, and recreational facilities is based on the declining birthrates and the expected population increase of adults in Calatrava. These claims, however, lack adequate evidence to support its recommendation.
Although birthrate data can be used to predict number of future students that will be enrolled in public schools, it is not the only measure. Families from out of town could move to the city of Calatrava and have kids of school-going age, therefore increasing the number of students enrolled in the school. Furthermore, there is no way of predicting if birthrates in Calatrava will continue to decline or even increase in the next decade. Therefore, it is premature of the committee to assume that the number of students will continue to decrease other the next 10 years. Moreover, their recommendation to reduce funding for the next decade can have severe consequences as public schools in ten years might not be adequately equipped as it was before funding was cut.
Next, the author of the memo also recommends reducing funds for athletic playing fields and other recreational facilities. Are they implying that students in public schools are the only users of these facilities? If so, stating this is the memo with evidence to back it up can strengthen their argument, however it might only work in the short-term. This is because, as stated before, they are unable to predict the number of students that will enrol in the next ten years. However, if these athletic and recreational facilities are not only used by students, but also member of the public, it would then be more helpful if they were to increase funding for these facilities. This would help proper regular maintenance these areas for student and public use.
Moving on, the claim made in the memo is that they expect the adult population of the city to increase is baseless and unfounded. There is no statistical evidence showing the number of expected adults in Calatrava. Thus, it is careless to recommend pumping in more money to fund facilities and programs primarily used by adults. If the author is able to produce proper and significant data showing that indeed the adult population in Calatrava is expected to increase, this will in turn strengthen their argument.
To conclude, the arguments made by the author of the memo lacks in evidence to support their recommendation. Further evidence regarding expected rates birth in the next 10 years, ways to measure the number of students expected to enrol in schools, and statistical data on expected adult population, are needed in other to fully evaluate if the recommendation is fitting.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 441 350
No. of Characters: 2200 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.583 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.989 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.779 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.211 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.818 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 110, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...idence to support their recommendation. Further evidence regarding expected rates birth...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, as for
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2261.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12698412698 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8708897953 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433106575964 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 720.0 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.3840325151 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.0 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2105263158 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78947368421 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199057213206 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627365128922 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0402106584151 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107533501122 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0675004225507 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.