According to the recommendation proposed by the planning department of the city of Transopolis, revamping of the declining residential area would revitalize the city as the renewal program has done on the other housing area near the freeday. However, the passage severely lacks crucial evidence to support its claim and thus needs more thorough analyses before it can be hastily accepted.
The foremost evidence it needs to gather and evaluate is the people's movement from the previous renewal program. The urban renewal program has reconstructed the "severely substandard housing near the freeway" as an industrial area. However, the passage does not mention or explain where the displaced people from the housing went. They might have moved to the other area of the city or to completely different city. If they have moved out from the city, the relevant taxes, such as income and goods, might have declined. Furthermore, less population means less consumption, whereas the increased industrial areas have raised production. If the new plan drives the population out of the city as the previous plan has done, the aggravated disparity between the production and consumption might disrupt the local economy. If the tracking has bespoken that they are moving out from the city, the city would be defaced more than revitalized, making the argument less attractive.
On top of that, one has to understand why the population in the latter city is declining. In fact, because the two cities are on the opposite sides, they might suffer from different reasons. Thus, if the renewal plan wrongly assumes the desolations of two residential areas have come from the same cause and prescribes the identical solution, the renewal might at best not solve or actually worsen the current situation of the local area. Then, the city would have to allocate more resources to eradicate or soothe the problem aftwards. In this sense, if the department has gathered information that shows the causes of two cities are different, the passage's argument is further weakened.
Lastly, the department has to collect information about expected effectiveness of an altnerative housing. The passage introduces the nearby residentail neighborhood to the city in concern to house the displaced population. Nevertheless, the passage does not show whether those forcedly moved out are eager to move to the neighboring apartments. There exists multiple possible reasons why they might have stayed where they live rather than the adjacent ones, ranging from financial reasons, amenities, and transportations. Thus, the new options might not appear as attractive as the department believes. If the evidence proves that the alternative housing nearby the neighborhood seems not too effective, the passage loses its strength.
To wrap it up, despite the evidence it has compiled and parsed, the passage fails to lend a cogent argument. In fact, it still contains many holes and needs to garner more evidence to further shore up its overall claim. Thus, it can be concluded that it is too foolhardy to readily accept what the passage argues until acquirements an understandings of the evidence as well as its implications are performed.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 511 350
No. of Characters: 2632 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.755 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.151 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.761 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 162 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.292 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.197 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.492 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 62, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
... it needs to gather and evaluate is the peoples movement from the previous renewal prog...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 651, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'passages'' or 'passage's'?
Suggestion: passages'; passage's
...causes of two cities are different, the passages argument is further weakened. Lastly...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 333, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'an understanding' or simply 'understandings'?
Suggestion: an understanding; understandings
...t the passage argues until acquirements an understandings of the evidence as well as its implicat...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, furthermore, however, if, lastly, nevertheless, so, still, then, thus, well, whereas, as to, in fact, such as, as well as, on top of that
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2712.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3072407045 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8846357062 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495107632094 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 853.2 705.55239521 121% => 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: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.5007607613 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.0 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2916666667 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.210821385289 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616187584523 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0588038203121 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121534444757 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0776016839313 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.16 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 145.0 98.500998004 147% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.