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.
According to a recommendation made by the planning department of the city of Transopolis, a declining residential area should be adapted for industrial use in order to revitalize the city. The department is making this suggestion based off of evidence of another neighborhood that was adapted for industrial use ten years ago and caused an increase in factories, property tax revenues, and decreased crime rates. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three pieces of evidence are needed to evaluate the argument.
First off, there is no evidence given that the housing adapted 10 years ago is comparable to the current declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Perhaps the current neighborhood is in a part of the city with significantly high crime rates, and factories will not want to build in the area. There is a possibility that this current neighborhood is much smaller than the large area adapted ten years ago and reconstructing the declining residential area will not have as great, or any effect on the city. If either of these points hold merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is strongly weakened.
Subsequently, information is needed on if the improvements in Transopolis ten years ago were because of the large area adapted for industrial use. For example, it is possible that the crime rates in Transopolis decreased due to an increased police presence at the time. In addition, several factories may have been constructed because of a boost in the overall economy and therefore factories had more finances to support construction. If the above assumptions are true, then the original argument does not hold water.
Finally, what if the residents of the area on the opposite side of the city are angered from being displaced from their housing and this causes a further decline of Transopolis? This argument is assuming that everyone in the declining residential area will be content with being moved to nearby alternate housing. Perhaps these people have strong attachment and memories within their home and do not want to move. This could cause the city residents to riot, complain, and cause mayhem within the planning department. If this hypothesis is true, then the argument continues to be further deteriorated.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is substantially flawed. The planning department of the city of Transopolis needs to provide further evidence on the comparison of the two residential areas, information about the changes in Transopolis ten years ago, and possibly survey the residents of the new declining area. This evidence will help evaluate the argument more efficiently and allow the department to create more cogent conclusions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2260 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.113 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.934 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.129 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2315.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.23755656109 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.993612803 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461538461538 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 745.2 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.2831156154 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.842105263 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2631578947 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31002750461 0.218282227539 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0942711376177 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10160006651 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182781089624 0.128457276422 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0483338689591 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.