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.
The writer of the letter argues that in order to save the tourism industry of Tria island, authorities at Tria island should start charging tourists for using the beaches of Tria island. It is based on the premises that erosion of sand at its beaches started and it poses grave threat to the tourism industry of Tria island. Moreover, the similar step was taken by the island of Batia in order to reduce the risk of damage to buildings. The argument seems true at first sight, however, on deeper analysis it becomes clear that certain relevant aspects have not been taken into account, leading to a number of unverified evidences and logical flaws.
First such evidence is the probability that tourists would keep coming to Tria island despite the introduction of the charges. However, there may be the case that tourists come to this island because it does not charge for using its facilities while other beaches in its proximity charge for the facilities which would make the argument unreliable. This beach provides tourists to spend enjoyable time with no or little costs to the tourists and even it is preferable to other beaches because of the low costs despite it is the farthest from the location where most tourists come. Therefore, in order to overcome this flaw, the writer should collect the evidences from market research study that tourists would be indifferent to the charges introduced by Tria island and should also prove that tourists would keep coming to this island.
Secondly, the writer’s argument is incorrectly based on the analogy between Batia and Tria. However, there may be important differences between these two locations such as Batia is known for its buildings while Tria is known for its beaches which would make the argument significantly weak. It may be possible that the buildings at Tria island are not vulnerable but only that it is facing the problem of erosion of sand at its beaches which is not a concern for tourists since they come to this island because of its beaches and they are indifferent to its buildings. Hence, in order to make the argument more valid, the writer should compile the evidences from market research study about the preferences of tourists pertaining to the buildings and should also demonstrate that buildings at Tria are in precarious condition and tourists have inclination towards buildings and they prefer to visit a beach which offers good buildings to stay.
Finally, the writer has arbitrarily assumed that this island is habituated by tourists only. However, it is possible that this Tria island is visited by more locals than tourists which would make the argument unacceptable. It may find that people who live in the vicinity of Tria island come to this island for more often and authorities at Tria do not charge them. Moreover, the proportion of local people and tourists is very high that implementation of charges only on tourists would be insufficient to redress the problem of erosion. Thus, to make the argument more reliable, the writer should aggregate the evidence from authorities about the percentage of local and tourists coming to this island and should assert that tourists are more in numbers than the locals who visit this island.
After close examination of the argument presented, it is apparent that the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on certain unwarranted evidences. The recommendations in the above paragraphs show how this argument may be strengthened and made more logically sound in order to evaluate the viability of the proposed measure.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 597 350
No. of Characters: 2945 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.943 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.57 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 213 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.6 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.13 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...s tourists to spend enjoyable time with no or little costs to the tourists and eve...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 53.0 28.8173652695 184% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3014.0 2260.96107784 133% => OK
No of words: 597.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04857621441 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.94303383012 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63845841616 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.386934673367 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 931.5 705.55239521 132% => 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: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 69.3080161888 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.631578947 119.503703932 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.4210526316 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.36842105263 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.324849335892 0.218282227539 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.134311632849 0.0743258471296 181% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105338149856 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.202101593298 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113501722545 0.0628817314937 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 14.3799401198 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.6 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.