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 argument stated above is faulty for numerous reasons. Essentially, the author rests the argument on a foundationless assumption that following the guidelines of a comprehensive urban renewal plan from the past will produce a similar result in the present. Concluding that the city of Transopolis will revitalize based on the prior stated assumption is unreasonable.
Firstly, the argument fails to provide evidence to support the similarity in the location of the two areas. To start, the environment of the first renovated part of the city could be safer than the part of the city that the department is trying to renovate now. This could be the distinguishing factor that allowed for the area to flourish and decline in crime rates. If the opposing side of the city is the epicenter of gang related activities, then the same results will not be generated. Because this side of the city is the home to many gangs, then the crime rate in this area will be unable to show a downwards trend. Moreover, the side of the city that was able to succeed through these changes are in a more convenient location, it makes sense why it was able to grow. Imagine that this city of the city is the heartland of the city with a growing population. It is also stated that the freeway is close to this area. Now, if the other part of Transopolis is further from the majority of the population and is in a rural area, it may not be able to show the intended results for this differing attribute. On the other hand, if the author presented data on the similarities of the two locations of the city, it would be more plausible. In either case, the author would still lack evidence for the rates of crime related activities.
Going forward, the author also neglects to address other issues presented. Assuming that the author is successful in proving that the crime rates in both parts of Transopolis are the same, the argument still assumes that the population on the two sides will follow the same trend. It is possible that the part of Transopolis that was rebuild subsumes wealthier individuals than those that live in the opposite side. If this is the case, it is unlikely that residents in this area will be willing to move to alternate housing after they have already spent their savings in the houses they currently live in. Meaning, the assumption that the population in this area will clear out is unjust.
Lastly, the argument assumes that the present would surely produce the same results as the past. There is a possibility that the economy was at its summit at the time of the first construction of the city, allowing the city to show an incline in revenue. If the economy is in a financial struggle in the present, the city might not be able to succeed again and the argument would fall short. If the author provided information that shows the economies are the same in present day, the argument would hold more validity.
As a result of the various unwarranted assumptions made by the author, the argument fails to make a compelling case to prove the city will show the same results this time around.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 546 350
No. of Characters: 2506 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.834 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.59 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.546 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.98 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 335, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'rebuilded', 'rebuilt'.
Suggestion: rebuilded; rebuilt
...e that the part of Transopolis that was rebuild subsumes wealthier individuals than tho...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, still, then, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2569.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 4.70512820513 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61031935292 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419413919414 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 828.0 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4052661496 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.041666667 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.20833333333 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186894388759 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0586660328817 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0523726720905 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105086958964 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0633556599385 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.33 12.5979740519 82% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.