In the letter sent to the head of the tourism bureau about the island of Tria, the author concludes that in order to improve Tria's tourist industry over the long term, people should be charged and the sand of the island should be replenished like it was done to the Batia island. However, the argument fails to provide some evidence upon which the argument was based, and thus is not logically convincing.
To begin, the argument did not address the opinion that people might stop using the beaches once they are charged. Perhaps, the people who visit the beach do so because they do not pay. Thus, before fully implementing this suggestion, it is important that a test run be done to see people's view about the new development. If those who use the beach do so because they do not pay, it is likely that they stop going to the beach once a fee is required of them. This will then mean that the funds needed to protect the buildings cannot be raised.
Also, the author needs to make clear what the cause of the erosion is. The cause of the erosion was not stated in any part of the argument. If the erosion is caused by the activities of people on the beach, then replenishing the sand might not prove successful. Instead, the activities of the users should be controlled than monitored rather than investing a huge amount of money on replenishing the sand which will still be washed away if human activities are not controlled.
Lastly, the author needs to provide an evidence that replenishing the sand of the island, like it was done in Bertia, will result in preservation of the buildings near the island. Perhaps, other things have been put in place by the people of Bertia to control the erosion experienced asides replenishing of the sand. They might have reduced activities such as fishing, canoeing and swimming alongside replenishing the sand. Thus, the author needs to prove that this measure alone will help protect the building or other measures will be put in place as well.
In conclusion, it can be seen from above that the argument is logically unsound without the evidences demanded. To strengthen, the argument, the author should let us know if people will continue to use the beach once they are being charged, what the cause of the erosion is, to help us evaluate if the measure to be put in place will help raise enough fund for the project, will control the erosion and thus protect the buildings near the island and in turn improve the tourist industry.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 439 350
No. of Characters: 1996 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.577 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.547 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.357 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.824 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.35 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.583 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, lastly, so, still, then, thus, well, as to, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2053.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 4.67653758542 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.43722350769 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446469248292 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.7122275541 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.764705882 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8235294118 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236111601258 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0748481306057 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0972913095105 0.0701772020484 139% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146837662855 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.093705142889 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.02 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.16 12.5979740519 81% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.