The recommendation in the letter that the Committee should restrict its membership to residents solely in order to make it perform better seems logical. However, a few respects should be discussed in advance in order to examine the efficiency of this proposal.
A primary concern is about the foundation of reasoning in the letter, i.e., objections cast by non-resident committee members lead to failure of decision-making. In order to answer the question, we may survey statistically whether they are routine phenomena which obstruct the functioning of the Committee or accidental incidents but perceived with bias as frequent ones by the author of the letter. Obviously, if the failures of meetings are merely occasional, then the restriction of membership cannot lead to a better performance of the committee but has the risk of lowering the diversity of the committee members, since outsider may hold different but beneficial points of view.
Even though the non-local members raise objections frequently, this can't be directly related to their inadequacy of being members; their objections may be reasonable ones, probably due to their different consideration than the local.
This assumption can be investigated by looking carefully at the outcomes of those issues on which non-resident members have objections, to determine whether their oppositions are sensible or not.
Also, we can review the overall performance of all committee members to realize the correlation between the ability to advising and local citizenship and to find out whether only certain non-resident members performing poorly yet most of them are operating well. If it turns out that non-resident committee members as a whole perform well, then inhibit the involvement of them not only has no legitimacy but also shrink the function of the Committee.
All in all, for the sake of Oak City, we need the inquiries mentioned above to be answered in order to evaluate the proposal provided by the letter.
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: 10 15
No. of Words: 314 350
No. of Characters: 1637 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.21 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.213 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.039 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 128 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.877 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.41 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.674 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.193 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 69, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...mbers raise objections frequently, this cant be directly related to their inadequacy...
^^^^
Line 7, column 167, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...g and local citizenship and to find out whether or not only certain non-resident members perfo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, so, then, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1683.0 2260.96107784 74% => OK
No of words: 315.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34285714286 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07221555891 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568253968254 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 10.0 19.7664670659 51% => 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: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 54.2232422491 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 168.3 119.503703932 141% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.5 23.324526521 135% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0987120738024 0.218282227539 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0438374790399 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.021011638362 0.0701772020484 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0503957010783 0.128457276422 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248564051793 0.0628817314937 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.5 14.3799401198 136% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.55 48.3550499002 65% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.6 12.197005988 136% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.04 8.32208582834 121% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.