The author of this recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis argues that to take another adaptation of a declining residential area for industrial use should be beneficial to further revitalize the city. At first glance, this argument may seem convincing; however, on closer inspection, one can quickly recognize that this recommendation is rife with unwarranted assumptions and lack of necessary evidence for validity of his claim.
First of all, the author assumes that there is close correlation between the renewal of the substandard housing area near the freeway and the improvement in crime rates and the increase in property tax revenues for the entire city. However, there is no relevant evidence presented. To clarify the cause and effect relation between the two, the author should present the detailed information about what kind of crime has been prevalent in this area and what kind of crime decreased recently. The decline of crime rates may be because of the strengthened police forces or because the economy in the city has been improved, not because of the newly built factories. Moreover, we cannot also easily correlate the increase of property tax revenues to the renewal of this area to industrial usage. As mentioned earlier, it is just due to the entire improvement of the economy, not due to the renewal. So, the author needs to provide specific information as to where the increasing property tax revenues come from so that the reader can be convinced of the proposed correlation.
Second, the author also assumes that the conditions of the two area would be similar enough to expect the similar effects of the renewal program. However, as the author says, the previous area is near the freeway. Generally, in areas near the freeway, there aren't so many residents. So it would not have been difficult to displace the residents to other area. However, the proposed area is a residential area, and this area is on the opposite side of the city. In such a case, the city government could have enormous difficulties to move the living residents in this area to neighborhoods. Are the houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods enough to accommodate those displaced? Are those houses and apartments freely offered to those people? Without the answers to these questions, there is little chance for the author to obtain supports.
Lastly, the author's claim and evaluation are thoroughly based upon the comparison to the previous renewal action. However, the author should recognize that the action was taken even ten years ago. This is by no means short period. And, it is hardly to imagine that there have been no changes in circumstances in economy and price. Without taking account of these variables, the result of the same action could be straying from the author's evaluation.
To sum up, in order to strengthen the argument, the author should provide more sound evidence and detailed data and information.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. it is like a conclusion paragraph.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 489 350
No. of Characters: 2431 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.702 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.971 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.711 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.013 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.481 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 259, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...rally, in areas near the freeway, there arent so many residents. So it would not have...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...uthor to obtain supports. Lastly, the authors claim and evaluation are thoroughly bas...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 432, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... same action could be straying from the authors evaluation. To sum up, in order to str...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, so, then, as to, kind of, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2490.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 488.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.10245901639 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78488356273 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475409836066 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.8306450977 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.75 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3333333333 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.41666666667 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.179001325803 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0466404095766 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0638309306178 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940397230097 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0709306303316 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 21.0 12.3882235529 170% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.