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 author claims that since Tria Island is facing a lot of problems regarding the sand Erosion at the shores. To resolve the issue, author argues that the people should be charged for using beaches. Stated in this way, the author failed to consider several key factor on the basis of which the argument needs to be evaluated. To justify the argument, the author reasons that charging of tourists provides enough money to the government for replenishing the sand at sea shores. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence provides little creditable support to author's view. Hence, author's argument is considered as incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author failed to mention the region or area which has undergone the erosion. If the area under sand erosion is small, then it would be inadequate to charge people for using the beaches. Additionally, funds can be arranged from various other ways like it can be taken from the government of Tria Island, or it could be taken by enhancing other amounts for tourists like food tax or travel tax etc. so that tourists can be indirectly charged the amount instead of direct money for using beaches. This way tourists can enjoy travelling in Tria island irrespective of any trouble and grumpy mood. Hence, if the author had mentioned information regarding the region which had undergone sand erosion, then the proper estimation of money can be done adequately for overcoming the problem.
Furthermore, the number of buildings and their height should be necessary to know from the author in order to conclude whether they needs to be prevented from damage or it should be sealed by the government for living. If there are low number of buildings and which are far away from the city, then unncessary charging the tourists should be avoided in order to enhance the tourism. Additionally, the author had compared Tria Island to the nearby Batia Island and suggest that since replenishing was done successfully in Batia Island to protect the neaby buildings. However, both the island is totally different from each other in terms of their geographical area and various other aspects and hence can't be compared. Moreover, sand erosion is a natural disaster which could be reduced but cannot be overcome. Thus, if some perticular area of the island had undergone the erosion, then that area should be banned by the government for tourists. Therefore, some information like number of nearby buildings and their height should be known in order to better evaluate the argument.
Finally, to better assess the argument, some questions needs to be answered from the author like what is the possiblity that the sand erosion could save nearby buildings from severe storms? Or Is there some way to prevent the beaches from sand erosion like creating sand walls at the boundary of the beaches? Will the safety be assured after creating sand walls? If the author has considered all the above scenarios, the argument could become more cogent.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author needs to provide some information, perhaps by the way of reliable survey of the island in terms of sand erosion. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about why the author think that the charging of tourists provides sufficient funds to assure the safety and will further enhance the tourism.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: If there are low number of buildings and which are far away from the city, then unncessary charging the tourists should be avoided in order to enhance the tourism.
Error: unncessary Suggestion: unnecessary
Sentence: Additionally, the author had compared Tria Island to the nearby Batia Island and suggest that since replenishing was done successfully in Batia Island to protect the neaby buildings.
Error: neaby Suggestion: nearby
Sentence: Thus, if some perticular area of the island had undergone the erosion, then that area should be banned by the government for tourists.
Error: perticular Suggestion: particular
Sentence: Finally, to better assess the argument, some questions needs to be answered from the author like what is the possiblity that the sand erosion could save nearby buildings from severe storms?
Error: possiblity Suggestion: possibility
---------------
argument 1 -- not exactly. need to argue:
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.
argument 2 -- not exactly. need to argue:
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.
argument 3 -- not exactly. need to argue:
And since beaches and buildings in the area will be preserved, Tria's tourist industry will improve over the long term.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 569 350
No. of Characters: 2807 1500
No. of Different Words: 226 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.884 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.517 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 222 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.76 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.033 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.72 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 133, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'need'
Suggestion: need
...uthor in order to conclude whether they needs to be prevented from damage or it shou...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 172, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... needs to be prevented from damage or it should be sealed by the government for l...
^^
Line 5, column 702, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...rea and various other aspects and hence cant be compared. Moreover, sand erosion is ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...come more cogent. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, in conclusion, by the way, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2870.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 569.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04393673111 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60756559296 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.407732864675 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 884.7 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9645455846 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.384615385 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8846153846 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42307692308 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => 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: 0.210132524276 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0721503733503 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0566495379068 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130200974049 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0427432601376 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.9 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.