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 editorial of Lamont Times claims that the reason Chiswick has a higher percentage of young voters in the difference in social media interest. While the statistics of the case do correlate with this conclusion, the writer did not provide enough information to claim it "clearly" true. There are many alternative explanations left unexplored.
Firstly, why does the survey only poll young adults while the conclusion encompasses all? This writer claims the majority of Lamont locals do not participate in elections. The percentage of Chiswick outways the former and this discrepancy matches the survey of social media users. It is true that young adults are often eager and active members of the voting public, but to base the town's overall numbers on them is extreme. The article has not provided the percentage of voters that fall in the young adult category. The majority may be another group all together leading to an entirely different possibility for a cause.
Second, the article fails to disclose the population of both towns. This is a large factor when studying these correlations. If Landon has a smaller number of people there is a high likelihood that these statistics are inflated. One potential voter would hold more weight than a much larger pool. The writer does not consider this or offer concrete evidence that these towns are comparable.
Lastly, social media is not the sole signifier of a knowledgeable voter. The fact that young people have considered themselves enlightened does not automatically make them so. Social media is filled with bias and propaganda, not to mention outright lies about any opposition. This does not make for calculated and researched decision making by participation alone. The assumption that this tendency is the sole reason for the tipping scale is baseless.
In conclusion, while one cannot say the writer gives no explanation for his theory, it has not been substantiated until the missing information I pointed out is included. If the author does more research to support their claim and bridge the gap between other theories, the argument can be deemed valid. As it stands now, it does not hold water.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 126, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...actor when studying these correlations. If Landon has a smaller number of people t...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, so, while, in conclusion, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1838.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 354.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19209039548 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83866119546 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.573446327684 0.468620217663 122% => OK
syllable_count: 571.5 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.741032461 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 83.5454545455 119.503703932 70% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.0909090909 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.72727272727 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.67664670659 257% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0794982576729 0.218282227539 36% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0220397976704 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0320206377024 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.044722634543 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0386393034474 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.07 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.