The author argues here that through changing poorer residential areas of the city with a decreasing density in areas for industrial use to higher tax revenues and lower crime rates. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology. To justify this recommendation, the planning department notes that these effects already took place at the housing area near the freeway which they take as a proof for widening it out to the other side of the city with similar characteristics. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals that it provides little credible evidence for the author’s recommendation. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First, the argument readily assumes that adapting housings with a lower standard for industrial area revitalizes the city. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. Out of experience from the history of the development of cities, a higher crime rate and relatively low tax income in poorer residential areas are normal. Anyway, these areas are important to support in terms of building an infrastructure to help the people living there, not just replacing it with industry and let the people move out of their home. The argument would have been much more convincing if it stated that the people living there wanted to move and that the lower crime rates along with higher tax revenues are partly caused by the very people benefiting from the newly formed industrial area.
Secondly, the argument readily claims that this progress can merely be adopted by other areas of the city. Usually, the reason why people with lower social standards cluster in a district because of comparably low rents or general lower costs of living. If these people get pushed in alternative housings in a more expensive neighbourhood, these families might have even less money and the crime rates even increase. Thus, evidence that these people get new accommodation which is affordable and the state cares about the proper education of the youth as well as jobs for the adults in the newly established industrial areas would show much better evidence for a subsequent declining crime rate. Nevertheless, if it is proven that the inhabitants get pushed even further out of the city, in even poorer districts or suburbs, the argument is less convincing since it doesn’t solve, but strengthens the problems of the people living there by widening the gap between rich and poor.
In conclusion, the author’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide better evidence, perhaps by way of a detailed analysis of the short and long-term effects of the new industrial area instead of substandard housings. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about the people living there, the reason for high crime rates and the side effects of forcing people to leave their homes.
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not exactly right on the point. Let's check out a sample:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-essays/following-appeared-recommendatio…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2448 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.047 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.698 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.944 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.501 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
anyway, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, as for, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19008264463 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82748518918 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489669421488 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 795.6 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1287044416 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.555555556 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.8888888889 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139621335572 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0471021520563 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0428909289367 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0930097967918 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0465052153314 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.