The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis.
"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
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.
The planning department of Transopolis have reached a conclusion that, in order to revitalize the city, they would be making use of the declining residential for industrial purposes. Their conclusion is based on the result of a similar action they took ten years ago. However, there are some evidences that must be evaluated to warrant this action. Let us have a look at a couple of these evidences.
First and foremost, the planning department is talking about the renewal program that was carried out a decade ago. Passing of ten years brings about lots of changes with it. The results of this program, upon which the department based it's new renewal program, represent the city of Transopolis ten years in the past. It could be possible that the increased property tax revenues, decreased crime rate were ephemeral. What evidence has the author provided about these facts in the present time? What if in the past ten years, property tax, as a result of renewal plummeted and the crime rate soared? There is no evidence to refute this proposition. If my assumptions are true, then the new programs could change the city of Transopolis for worse.
Moreover, the author states that in the previous program, the city made adapted 'severely substandard' housing near freeway and in the new program, the department is planning to use 'declining residential area' in the opposite side of the city. If the department wants to do so, it must provide evidence that the two areas are, in fact, similar. 'Declining residential area' does not inspire much confidence in me. What if the buildings are on the verge of collapse? Then the department is putting the lives of many workers in jeopardy. The department must provide evidence that the buildings they are planning to re-use can be re-used. It should also answer that the area on the opposite side of the city is similar to the freeway. If the department is not able to provide the said evidences, then it is risking the lives of many workers. In addition, things will not go as planned because the two areas would be different from one another.
The argument, as it stands now, is significantly flawed. It's reliance on many warranted assumptions, as stated above, needs to be evaluated. If the department is able to provide evidences pointed out in the above paragraphs, then the department can go ahead with their desired plan but until then, they must refrain from the mentioned renewal.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 1967 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.751 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.582 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.546 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.542 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.443 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.044 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, in addition, in fact, talking about, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2025.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 414.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.89130434783 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6653765783 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48309178744 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 641.7 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.3236309011 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.375 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.25 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => 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: 0.27726198335 0.218282227539 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0687942114132 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0714123231684 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1520772122 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0636465082655 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 14.3799401198 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.79 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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
---------------------
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.