The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria. "Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for using the beaches. Although this solution may annoy a few tourists in the short term, it will raise money for replenishing the sand. Replenishing the sand, as was done to protect buildings on the nearby island of Batia, will help protect buildings along our shores, thereby reducing these buildings' risk of additional damage from severe storms. And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term." 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.
In the letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria, it is suggested that collection of money from tourists to use the beaches be started to use that money stop the erosion of the beaches. The tourism bureau has come to this conclusion based on the previous work done by the island of Batia to tackle erosion on their island. However, three questions must be answered by this argument before it can be properly evaluated.
Firstly, will people be inclined to come to the beaches if there is a monetary fee involved to use the beaches? As the use of beaches was free just a while ago, many people might not be in favour to pay the fee against the prediction of the tourism bureau's prediction of a few discontented people. If this is the case, then the assumption made by the tourism bureau is seriously flawed and can only be evaluated when there is a report of the number of people willing to pay the fee.
Secondly, will the fee money from the tourists be enough to replenish the sand on the beaches? It is not stated as to how much amount of money will be needed for the replenishment of the sand along the shoreline and how long it would take to reach necessary quantity of funding for sand replenishment along the shoreline. So, it is not known as to how long it would take to reach the above mentioned goal of sand replenishment along the shoreline. So, before the argument above can be evaluated, a report describing the money needed for the sand replenishment and the duration of the collection of fees for the use of beaches could prove useful.
Thirdly, did the island of Batia raise money for tackling soil erosion by asking tourists to pay a fee to use their beaches? It is prematurely assumed that the island of batia has done the same thing as proposed by the tourism bureau of the island of tria. Even if the island of batia has devised a solution in the same way as proposed by the island of tria, it would still be unknown as to how the people responded to the fee. So, If the above assumption is supported by an evidence, then it would be helpful to evaluate the argument.
In conclusion, the argument in the letter is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above mentioned three questions and offer evidence, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed claim to charge people to use beaches.
Comments
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: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 1953 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.409 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.514 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.431 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.63 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.16 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, while, as to, in conclusion, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1999.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.51241534989 5.12650576532 88% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57462050006 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.374717832957 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 641.7 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2683022488 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.9375 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.6875 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.273723663324 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105815653608 0.0743258471296 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0921851655787 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160283260053 0.128457276422 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102321323854 0.0628817314937 163% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 60.99 48.3550499002 126% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.17 12.5979740519 73% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.54 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.