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 concludes that the city should use the declining residential lands for industrial use to revitalize the city of Transopolis. The author comes to this conclusion based on results of the similar program, which was put into action ten years ago. Before we assess the validity of this argument, the author should provide evidence against the three assumptions stated below.
Firstly, the author assumes that decrease in crime rates and increase in property tax revenues are result of the comprehensive urban renewal program undertaken by the city of Transopolis. There can be multiple reasons which mitigated the crime rates in the city. Maybe, the city of Transopolis initiated an affordable educational programs for the children, who lacked even basic education and resorted to robbery for their daily bread. It is also possible that the increase in property tax revenue was a result of the new community center established in the heart of the city. If either of the above possibilities hold true then the author's contentions fails to hold water.
Secondly, the author assumes that trend observed near the freeway reflects a general trend which will be observe in rest of the neighborhoods. Perhaps the area near the freeway is well connected to other major city, and thus, the industrialization of that area had more positive affects than the other areas of the city. It can also be possible that the area near the freeway have more industrial favorable facilities like plenty of water and electricity supply, etc. and which is not to be case in other areas of the city. The author's assumption is likely to suffer in either of the aforementioned cases.
Lastly, the author assumes that people living in the residential area on the other side of the city are likely to agree to move in other neighborhoods. However, it is probable that the residents of that area have mental attachment to their place because a long generation of their family resided there. It may also be possible that the houses available in the nearby neighborhoods are not considered to meet the standards of the people living in the residential area where the program is to be initialized. The author's premise is severely undermined in either case.
In conclusion, the recommendation from the planning department of the city may be correct. However, as it stands now, three presumption undermines the validity of the result. To make their case more compelling, the author must back up the aforementioned premises with proof.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2057 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.969 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.777 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 94, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...lining residential lands for industrial use to revitalize the city of Transopolis. ...
^^^
Line 3, column 331, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'program'?
Suggestion: program
...lis initiated an affordable educational programs for the children, who lacked even basic...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 578, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...r established in the heart of the city. If either of the above possibilities hold ...
^^
Line 5, column 529, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...be case in other areas of the city. The authors assumption is likely to suffer in eithe...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 390, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[3]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'considered meeting'.
Suggestion: considered meeting
...ble in the nearby neighborhoods are not considered to meet the standards of the people living in t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2120.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22167487685 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 4.16604628674 2.78398813304 150% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495073891626 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.4440039007 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.578947368 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3684210526 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.20562792562 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0595246905415 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729316281192 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110660760031 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0382351394644 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => 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: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.