The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce.
"Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined within a month. The city of Amburg has recently begun police patrols on bicycles in its business district, but the rate of vandalism there remains constant. We should install high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg, then, because doing so is a more effective way to combat crime. By reducing crime in this way, we can revitalize the declining neighborhoods in our city."
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 presented by the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce, that by installing high-intensity lighting throughout Amburg, vandalism can be reduced, and doing so is a more effective way to combat crime, is not entirely and logically convincing because it is based on a few unproven assumptions. The president claims, via a dubious analogy, that in last October use of high-intensity lighting in its central business district of the City of Belleville, has resulted in a decline in vandalism there in a month. But, the president also mentions that police patrolling on bicycles in the city of Amburg has not been a successful step towards reduction of vandalism. Let us look at the multiple false assumptions and drawbacks that the argument contains.
Vandalism can be of two forms, visible and non-visible. While as the name implies, visible vandalisms such as demolition of properties by local municipalities or graphitic walls are quotidian. Demolition of properties by local municipalities are inevitable if the owner of the property is not responsible enough to pay property taxes on due time. But graphitic walls are consequences of foul and demoralized behaviors by the owner of the properties. No doubt, this form of vandalism can be checked by high-intensity lighting. On the other hand, non-visible vandalisms such as murder of the property owner or involvement of the mafia are unstoppable by high-intensity lighting. It is possible to assume that the city of Belleville has more visible vandalisms than its non-visible counterpart. Moreover, it can also be assumed that the city of Amburg has more non-visible vandalism, which could not be restricted by police patrolling on bicycles.
Another form of vandalism can be property damage, which is pretty self-explanatory, but it can take on many different forms. Sometimes, no matter how well we prepare a store, it still gets trashed. Without warning, we don’t have time to prepare barricades or board up windows. By the time a riot breaks out, our properties see extensive harm and possibly looting. Property damage isn’t only from outside forces, but it can happen from ignored maintenance items as well. According to the law, it can include negligence or acts of nature. Imagine a business with a fleet of vehicles harmed by improperly stored fuel tanks. Property damage can be avoided by staying prepared and aware of current events. Clearly, either negligence or act of God, cannot be prevented by high-intensity lighting or bicycle patrolling. Hence, it is feasible to assume that the city of Belleville has lesser amounts of these uncontrollable events.
To conclude, multiple factors are needed to accounted for while attempting to reduce crimes in a city. The city’s geographic positioning, analysis of previous crime rates in various segments, availability of advanced patrolling methodologies is to name a few. Simply on the basis of a successful method of reducing crime in one city, cannot become successful in another city with completely different circumstances. Hence, on the basis of the above mentioned points and factors, it is disagreeable to claim that installing high-intensity lighting in the city of Amburg could reduce crimes.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 515 350
No. of Characters: 2649 1500
No. of Different Words: 255 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.764 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.131 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 164 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 127 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.808 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.181 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.577 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.281 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 104, Rule ID: NUMEROUS_DIFFERENT[1]
Message: Use simply 'many'.
Suggestion: many
...ty self-explanatory, but it can take on many different forms. Sometimes, no matter how well we...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, look, moreover, so, still, well, while, no doubt, such as, on the other hand
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 : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2719.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 513.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30019493177 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75914943092 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.20309978527 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510721247563 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 877.5 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.5554089121 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.576923077 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7307692308 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.76923076923 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.279252532162 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0686383262691 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0957343097873 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176832738354 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117922745634 0.0628817314937 188% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.98 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 98.500998004 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.