The letter in the Oak City Gazette makes an argument for the Committee for a Better Oak City to restrict its membership to city residents only and predicts that it will make Oak city a better place to live and Work. He supports it with the evidence of recent meetings failing to take important decisions because of objections raised by members who are not city residents and that only those who pay taxes know how best to use the money. However, the argument raises a number of questions which need to be answered to evaluate the soundness of recommendation.
Firstly, there is question whether the objections raised by the non-resident members are actually foolish and that the decisions are indeed important. It may be that the objections raised by them are entirely relevant and are in fact preventing the misuse of funds in the garb of important decisions. Furthermore, there what is considered important by one may not considered so by other. There is need to provide objective evidence that decisions are actually important for the city.
Secondly, there is question whether understanding a city's business and politics require one to be resident and merely being a worker is not sufficient. It may be that people who do not reside there can come up with more objective assessment of conditions in the city. Moreover, the author makes claim such an understanding is not possible for non-residents do not pay any taxes is dubious at best. Moreover, there is no evidence that non-resident workers do not pay any taxes. They definitely pay taxes on their incomes and places where they work are infact part of the city. This makes the argument flawed.
Finally, there is question that by elimination of membership for non-city residents the committee will be able to make Oak city a better place to live and work. The author provides no evidence to support his claim of improvement. In fact it may be even more possible that the committee without any reasonable opposition, will run roughshod on budget to waste it. Furthermore, author in his arguments is showing clear bias against non-resident citizens without any evidence and this leads to a question on the motivation of the author.
In conclusion, there are number of questions which need to be answered before the recommendation and the prediction are considered well founded. In lack of answers to these questions the argument becomes suspect.
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: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 1968 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.788 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.211 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.823 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.548 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 399, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Two successive sentences begin with the same adverb. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...o not pay any taxes is dubious at best. Moreover, there is no evidence that non-resident...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, in conclusion, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2012.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 403.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.99255583127 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85727673118 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.439205955335 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 649.8 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9537519582 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.894736842 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2105263158 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42105263158 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => 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: 0.229245625058 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0643220508508 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127302825168 0.0701772020484 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129949343583 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.150452399718 0.0628817314937 239% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => 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.