In the argument, the author attributes the higher number of people who vote in Chiswick to more young adults participate in social media. However, the author should consider some alternative explanations to challenge the proposed explanations. Otherwise, the argument and the conclusion claim might be untenable.
To begin with, in the argument, the proposed explanation is that the relatively low social media accessing level results in a lower proportion of votes among young people. Nevertheless, alternative explanations should challenge this interpretation. It is possible that young people in Lamont are more stressed than those in Chiswick in daily life. They may spend most of their time working and simply do not have enough spare time to access social media, which can learn about knowledge of the current political situation and social issues, and to vote. As a result, it is a heavy workload instead of social media access playing as a key role in this phenomenon. Under such a scenario, these alternative interpretations exist to explain the facts in the argument could be readily debunked.
Furthermore, despite young people are indeed inactive in elections, other people could be the majority. To be more specific, probably, in Chiswick, most of the population are young adults, and they are enthusiastic in voting. So the voting percentage is quite high. As for Lamont, young people could be highly motivated in voting as well. But due to the different components of the population, the number of people who voted remain low. This may because the majority of Lamont is elder people, who are indifferent to politics, and children, who even do not have a legal right to vote. As a result, low participation in voting could simply nothing to do with young adults. In this case, the alternative explanation has qualified the argument.
Although the proposed explanations might justify the conclusion, the author should check some alternative explanations to challenge the proposed explanations, More considerations might be recommended to bolster the argument and the conclusion.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 331 350
No. of Characters: 1715 1500
No. of Different Words: 156 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.265 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.181 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.928 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.084 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, thus, well, as for, as a result, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1772.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 331.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35347432024 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04296953097 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510574018127 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 558.0 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.7230912401 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.4444444444 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3888888889 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.55555555556 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.10053367038 0.218282227539 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382465935608 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0408464275937 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0598503840206 0.128457276422 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409357305172 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.