The following editorial appeared in the Lamont Times newspaper.
"During last year’s election, only 35 percent of people living in Lamont voted, whereas in
the nearby affluent town of Chiswick, that number was 75 percent. In a recent survey of
young adults, over 80 percent of respondents in Chiswick reported frequently using their
mobile devices to access social media sites. However, in Lamont, only 60 percent of
young adults who own mobile devices reported accessing their social media accounts on a
regular basis. The survey also revealed that young adults in both towns who use social
media at least once a day are more likely to consider themselves knowledgeable about
current political and social issues, which is considered a key characteristic of those who
vote. Clearly, the number of people who vote in elections is higher in Chiswick than in
Lamont because more of Chiswick’s young adults actively participate in social media."
The argument states comparison between two towns and how many numbers of people who participated in the election and based on his explanations on rife assumptions to explain why Chiswick town has a greater number in its denizens contribution. First of all, the argument should provide more explanation to be feasible to evaluate if the argument conclusion is valid or not.
To begin, the argument says that the number of people who participate in voting in Chiswick town is greater than Lamont city based on its explanation that the number of young people who are using the social media is bigger. However; the argument should not depend on such a trivial explanation because of the number only not give us a clear picture around who and how many contributed to that election. For example, even if the number of young people who are using social media is great; but, they maybe regular user for such renowned sites such as Facebook, Instagram and so forth. The example illustrates that people not necessary because of using the social that guarantee that they surely vote in the election. If the above is true, then, drawn conclusion in the original argument is considerably weakened.
Further, the argument states that those mentioned people in the survey who are using the social sites once a day and based on their point of view of themselves as they understand in politics; the argument deduces that those who voted in the election. However, that not a warranted conclusion because those people perhaps see that they politically informed but never participate in such events. The survey should provide clear questions about how many numbers how participate and why the reasons behind that for each one to see a complete picture, in this case, we only can evaluate the reason which may explain the significant difference between the two mentioned towns. Therefore, if the aforementioned scenario is valid, that means this argument doesn't hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed because of its reliance on unwarranted assumptions in its explanation around the enormous difference between the numbers of participation in both towns; thus, if the author can provide more explanations such as in the form of systematic research study, then it will be feasible to evaluate that argument effectively.
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: 12 15
No. of Words: 386 350
No. of Characters: 1919 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.432 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.972 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.736 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.409 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.411 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 225, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...o are using the social media is bigger. However; the argument should not depend on such...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 749, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ario is valid, that means this argument doesnt hold water. In conclusion, the argum...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1963.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 385.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0987012987 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78597794895 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457142857143 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 705.55239521 89% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.6928529446 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.583333333 119.503703932 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.0833333333 23.324526521 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.83333333333 5.70786347227 155% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114088732986 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.047981285253 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529336272369 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0730895914133 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433743058033 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.6 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.