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 argues that industrial development in a declining residential area would revitalize the neighborhood and open more housing availability. However, the argument is not cogent enough to put forth a renewal plan. Careful consideration of the evidence provided in the argument must be taken in order to determine the validity of the argument. If the evidence is not substantial enough to support the recommendation, then the entire argument falls apart.
Firstly, it is mentioned that ten years ago the industrial renewal plan altered the substandard housing in a city that increased factory development, decreased crime rates, and increased property tax revenues. The author assumes that what worked for the city will also work for the residential area on the other side. However, the evidence vaguely demonstrates how the city is similar to the residential area on the other side. Increased factory development does not demonstrate whether jobs were created to support citizens to pay for housing. Regarding decreased crime rates, the author does not mention how high crime rates were in the past and whether the decrease was a large or small percentage. Additionally, the author does not mention whether property tax revenues improved housing situations. Did an increase in property tax improve the living standards and were people able to afford housing? The author must provide substantiated evidence that fills in the missing gaps of evidence.
Secondly, the author mentions that the industrial plan that worked for the other city would revitalize the unoccupied housing and decline in residency. The author assumes that implementing an industrial plan is the only way to improve the housing situation. However, the author provides insufficient evidence to support the claim. Perhaps, there are alternative explanations for why residency decreased. For instance, it could be that many citizens are not fond of the weather in the area. Perhaps too many hurricanes or other natural disasters are constantly destroying housing and making it harder for residents to repair and pay for damages. On the other hand, it could be that residents find it cheaper to house at a different location. Therefore, implementing more factories would not address the situation if people did not reside in the area for weather conditions or payment. Therefore, the author must provide evidence that indicates why people are not housing in the area.
Furthermore, the author must provide substantial evidence to determine the validity of the argument. What worked ten years ago in one city may not work the same in another city. The author must provide demographics and statistical data determining the changes of the city and compare them to the city where the renewal plan would take place. If the data matches, then the argument can be supported. If not, then the crime rates and property taxes would not prove similarity between both cities. Additionally, the author must provide a survey or first-hand data that determines the reason why residents do not reside in the city. If residents do not live in the area for weather conditions or for payment obligations, then implementing factories and increasing property taxes would not revitalize the city and address the main issue.
Furthermore, the author cannot move forward with the plan unless careful consideration of evidence is made. With appropriate statistics, data, and evidence, the argument can be substantiated. If not, the renewal plan holds no merit and can jeopardize investment and time.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 31 15
No. of Words: 562 350
No. of Characters: 2925 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.869 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.205 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.813 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 218 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 182 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 83 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.129 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.718 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.613 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.3 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 461, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., then the entire argument falls apart. Firstly, it is mentioned that ten years ...
^^^
Line 2, column 869, Rule ID: WERE_VBB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'where' or 'we'?
Suggestion: where; we
...ty tax improve the living standards and were people able to afford housing? The auth...
^^^^
Line 2, column 896, Rule ID: AFFORD_VBG[1]
Message: This verb is used with infinitive: 'to house'.
Suggestion: to house
...tandards and were people able to afford housing? The author must provide substantiated ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for instance, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2991.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 562.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32206405694 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86893614481 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90323471299 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.409252669039 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 962.1 705.55239521 136% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.8398395398 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4838709677 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1290322581 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.32258064516 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.161610189715 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0472922644359 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535733832119 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0932550224954 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0379523565928 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.