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."
In the recommendation, the author contends that the city should follow the precedent of city renewal program in a decling residential area to revitalize the city. The author mentions about the success of the precedent case and the opposite side of the city’s condition to prove his argument. Although the argument may seem convincing at first, the lack of evidence leads me to doubt the credibility of the argument.
To begin with, the author needs to provide solid evidence on the causal relationship between the prior urban renewal program and the proposed consequences. He belives that the crime rates in the area decreased because of the program. However, it is entirely possible that other factors contributed to the decrease in the crime rates. To illustrate, the area may have suffered from the adverse economy situation ten years ago. As the ecomomy became better, the crimes related to the theft or fraud may have declined significantly. Also, it is plausible that the property tax revenues for the entire city increased not due the area’s development, but other parts of city’s development. In either case, the argument’s claim would be severly weakened.
Second, the author needs to supplement the argument with the evidence on the conditions of the opposite side of the city. There is high chance that the conditions of the prior plan’s target area could different from the opposite side of the city. In fact, the freeway could not exist in the opposite side of the city. In this case, the similar action will not have a positive influence on the region.
Lastly, the author should provide the concrete evidence on why some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied. If the reasons behind the current situation is something that could not be remedied by the city’s renewal plan, the supply of the alternate housing would take a toll on the city’s budget. In other words, if the people’s reason of not living in the area is not treated properly by the city’s plan, the alternate housing will fail due to the same reason.
To put it briefly, the author’s argument is unpersuavie. To bolster the argument, the author should consider the aforementioned evidence thoroughly.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 368 350
No. of Characters: 1811 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.38 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.921 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.63 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 100 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.368 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.499 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e a positive influence on the region. Lastly, the author should provide the c...
^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing will fail due to the same reason. To put it briefly, the author's ar...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, briefly, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, in fact, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1916.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 368.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20652173913 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37987740619 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92146232352 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 605.7 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1082735967 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.842105263 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3684210526 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.187392672962 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.05609322521 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0667318573547 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0956188155553 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0693171510938 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.91 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => 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.