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 recommendation supported by the planning department of the city of Transopolis is based on unsupported evidence, flawed reasoning and fallacious correlations. The consequence could be that the argument is a reflection of mere coincidences. In that sense, more evidence is needed to evaluate whether the recommendation is correct or not.
First, there is no evidence that the renewal program is related to the decrease of crime rates nor to the increase of property tax revenues. In this particular topic, the department should provide more evidence in order to strengthen the argument. For instance, it would be important to understand how the crime rate changed over these 10 years in the entire city. In other words, it is totally possible, and even likely, that the in 10 years the crime rate decreased in the city as a whole. In addition, this improvement in crime rates might be attributed to particular security policies that are not related with the program in question. If this was the case, one of the pillars supporting the recommendation would be false. In the same line, the department needs to explain and present evidence capable of linking the increase in property tax revenues and the program itself. Although it is possible that the two things are related, it could be a mere coincidence.
Second, the argument might be weaken due to flawed reasoning. Indeed, there is an underlying assumption of what revitalizing the city means and there are alternative views that can be opposed. Even if it is not totally explicit, the department claims that revitalizing the city means having more factories and displacing poor people to other areas. However, several studies and best practices in public policies have shown that investing in housing, commerce and communities might be more effective than creating industrial zones. It depends on what is the aim of the revitalization, but if it is to have a better quality of life and ensuring a city where well-being comes first, there are other alternatives to revitalize the city, such as creating new parks, investing in mixed areas with residential and commercial services, funding public transportation, etc. Therefore, it is important that the department explains what kind of revitalization they understand as the more important, so that people can measure the relation between the program and the impacts generated.
Another important topic is that, even if the department provides more evidence supporting that the program was a success indeed, there is no evidence that replicating the program in the opposite side of the city would have the same results. As there is no information about the city itself, it is hard to imagine if the neighborhoods have fundamental differences that could yield to totally different outcomes. Also, the program was implemented a decade ago and there might be new variables that influence the results. In that sense, the department should offer more explanations about how the implementation will occur and how the regional differences will be overcome.
To finish, it is relevant to note that the department is offering a very simplistic view about people’s displacement. Urbanistic and sociological literature have been expressing the complications related with displacing people, such as loss of vincules, decrease of community feelings, depression among other topics. It is imperative that the planning department of the city of Teresopolis provides more information about the impacts, including how many people are going to be displaced, how far are the neighborhoods and other topics.
To sum up, the recommendation is based on spurious correlation and provides no strong evidence capable of sustaining the argument. In fact, if some of the points stated in the previous paragraphs were true, the argument would be terribly weaken. Therefore, if the planning department of the city of Transopolis wants to convince the mayor and the society it needs to carry out some further studies that can shed light in the unanswered questions. However, even if more evidence is provided, the argument is based on a ideological view of what revitalizing a city means that might not be wanted by the citizens of Transopolis.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 679 350
No. of Characters: 3468 1500
No. of Different Words: 280 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.105 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.108 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.983 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 240 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 208 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 162 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 100 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.925 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.607 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.054 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he recommendation is correct or not. First, there is no evidence that the ren...
^^^^
Line 5, column 969, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elated, it could be a mere coincidence. Second, the argument might be weaken due...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 875, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...g public transportation, etc. Therefore, it is important that the department expl...
^^
Line 21, column 144, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...of sustaining the argument. In fact, if some of the points stated in the previous paragraph...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 21, column 517, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e is provided, the argument is based on a ideological view of what revitalizing a...
^
Line 23, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...anted by the citizens of Transopolis.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, well, for instance, in addition, in fact, kind of, such as, in other words, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 48.0 19.6327345309 244% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 80.0 55.5748502994 144% => OK
Nominalization: 47.0 16.3942115768 287% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3578.0 2260.96107784 158% => OK
No of words: 679.0 441.139720559 154% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26951399116 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.10466731938 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07471402881 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 204.123752495 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427098674521 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1139.4 705.55239521 161% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2871192718 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.785714286 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.25 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35714285714 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.172231420251 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0486541983674 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.040256930793 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0987768895826 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0216759749392 0.0628817314937 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.73 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 168.0 98.500998004 171% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.