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 substanda

Essay topics:

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 author concludes that to fill a part of the city with new life it should undergo the same transformation that another part of the city underwent ten years ago. To arrive at this conclusion, the author of the prompt assumes somethings that, until proven true, spells disaster in the revitalization process of the moribund city area. But before moving on with the recommendation two important questions need to be answered.

First, has nothing changed in the ten years that followed the rejuvenation of the city of Transopolis? After all ten years is a lot of time. Many things change in this amount of time. The author assumes that what was applicable a decade ago still holds true. Setting of factories may have lured many unemployed workers a decade ago but there needs to be a variety of jobs in a city. Maybe the declining residential area is to be blamed on the monotonous life in the factory based city of Transopolis. Moreover, the people may be leaving the city in search of new and different job. The planning department must ruminate over the issue of the satisfaction level of the city's population before planning on establishing more factories.

Secondly, the author assumes that the two parts of the city are the same. However, no evidence is provided regarding the compatibility of the area with factories. It may happen that the area which the author is talking about will not support the factories which will defeat the purpose of revitalizing the city. Does the new are have enough water which is the most important resource of any factory? The author assumes that there are enough resources to support new industries but fails to provide any evidence. Until any proof surfaces about the gumption of the area, it would be foolish to establish new factories.

In conclusion, the argument as it stands is flawed due to the absence of enough evidence. If the author is able to provide enough proof to refute the above mentioned assumptions then there is no problem in moving on with the recommendation. Till then it would be advisable not to carry out the recommended path.

Votes
Average: 5.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 104, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “After” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ejuvenation of the city of Transopolis? After all ten years is a lot of time. Many th...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 330, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...revitalizing the city. Does the new are have enough water which is the most importan...
^^^^
Line 7, column 91, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... due to the absence of enough evidence. If the author is able to provide enough pr...
^^
Line 7, column 280, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Till then it would be advisable not to carry out the recommended path.
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, after all, in conclusion, talking about

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1741.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 359.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8495821727 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35284910392 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76259652159 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.493036211699 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 561.6 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.1274494141 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.05 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.95 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.208288963866 0.218282227539 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638351802055 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0677503711559 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122329161091 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0835294814887 0.0628817314937 133% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.4 14.3799401198 72% => 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: 10.55 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.

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: 20 15
No. of Words: 359 350
No. of Characters: 1701 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.353 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.738 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.694 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 116 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.979 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5