The letter to the tourism head states that in order to recover from the erosion of sand, the tourism bureau of island of Tria has to impose fines on the people visiting the island. The author provides unwarranted assumptions and some other points are to be made into account for proper evidence.
To commence with, the author states that people who visit Island of Tria need to be charged, but he does not consider the number of people visiting the beach and the time period of beach visit. Moreover, the tourists may not feel interested to pay money just to visit the beach. Indeed, they may resort to some other places which do not charge them money. He also makes a point that the money collected from the visitors can be used for replenishing the sand. When there is no evidence on whether people are interested to pay money or not, it would be senseless to think about replenishment. If at all, they are interested to pay money, the money collected would not be sufficient to rejuvenate the beach.
The author also claims that replenishing of land was practised in Island of Batia and yielded good results. But he did not provide any further information on the demographic condition and weather parameters of batia island. It may differ slightly or greatly from the island of Tria. If it varies , the replenishment technique used in batia island may not seem to be fruitful in Tria island. Additionally, the climate in batia may not be too harsh as in Tria island, which resulted in washing of sand. Therefore, the sand in the shore may not be able to sustain the harsh weather , eventually resulting in collapse of buildings near the shoreline. It would be wise to construct barriers in between the buildings and shore to prevent the effect on buildings.
To conclude, the author does not take into account the number of visitors visiting the beach and whether they are interested to pay money for replenishment and also does not provide any data on the demographic and climatic conditions of the two islands in comparision. Therefore, the argument would have been reasonable if the reasons provided above are mentioned.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 367 350
No. of Characters: 1723 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.377 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.695 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.564 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.582 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 121, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of sand, the tourism bureau of island of Tria has to impose fines on the people v...
^^
Line 5, column 296, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ly from the island of Tria. If it varies , the replenishment technique used in bat...
^^
Line 5, column 579, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...not be able to sustain the harsh weather , eventually resulting in collapse of bui...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1769.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 367.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.82016348774 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37689890912 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64731227432 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471389645777 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.5725654835 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.058823529 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5882352941 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.94117647059 5.70786347227 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.248498112317 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0916889855395 0.0743258471296 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10532403295 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168854367621 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0964041852042 0.0628817314937 153% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.