The following recommendation appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of Hopewell.
"Two years ago, the nearby town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. Therefore, the best way to improve Hopewell's economy—and generate additional tax revenues—is to build a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument claims that the two years ago, the town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased and new business open there and tax was risen by 30 percent So, the same thing applies in Hopewell town. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factor bases on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on the assumption for which, there is no clear evidence. However, the scrutiny of the evidence reveals the little credible support of the author's conclusion.
First of all, The author readily assumes that the in ocean view build the golf course and resort hotel so tourism was increased, So same thing apply in hopewell town it also works. This is merely assumption without much solid ground. For example, another factor works like in ocean view environment was cool so tourists comes, it is not same environment as hopewell then may be tourist not comes to there. The argument would have much more convincing if it was explicitly stated that there is same critical and environment factors in hopewell and oceanview, so it is good to apply same strategy in hopewell.
Second, the argument readily assumes that new businesses have opened in oceanview, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. This is again weak and unsupported claims as the argument does not demonstrate a correlation between oceanview tax increased than in hopewell tax revenue will increase. For example, it may be possible in ocean view the businessman comes they are more sophiscated and veteran than it's impact on tax revenue. It is not same as possible in hopewell it's depends on which type business comes. If the argument had stated that same business and business branch open in hopewell then taxes revenue increase then the argument a lot more convincing.
Third, the author cites that in oceanview tax revenue increased 30 percent, here the author mention the absolute value than it is much plausible because may be possible in oceanview taxes revenue low and increases 30 percent. But what happen if already hopewell tax revenue more than oceanview so, we can not said that revenue increases and there is another factors are also effect in tax revenue. However the scrutiny of the evidence reveals little credible support tfor author's conclusion with respect to several contributing factors and raises several skeptical questions as above mention. Without answer of this question reader left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more wishful rather than substantive.
In conclusion, The author's argument unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, The author must provide better concrete evidence. It could be a lot more convincing if all relevant facts are mention. So the argument is unsubstantiated and open for debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2344 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.924 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.51 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.726 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.636 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 554, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eals the little credible support of the authors conclusion. First of all, The author...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 312, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'tourists'' or 'tourist's'?
Suggestion: tourists'; tourist's
...e in ocean view environment was cool so tourists comes, it is not same environment as ho...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 310, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'say'
Suggestion: say
...enue more than oceanview so, we can not said that revenue increases and there is ano...
^^^^
Line 7, column 342, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are another factors'?
Suggestion: there are another factors
...can not said that revenue increases and there is another factors are also effect in tax revenue. However...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 399, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...factors are also effect in tax revenue. However the scrutiny of the evidence reveals li...
^^^^^^^
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
...than substantive. In conclusion, The authors argument unpersuasive as it stands. To ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, well, for example, in conclusion, first of all, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2394.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 476.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02941176471 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57655541529 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.43487394958 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 748.8 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.2810276969 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.818181818 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6363636364 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.63636363636 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.172840852831 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0627572728085 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136805804603 0.0701772020484 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11661906948 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141671503112 0.0628817314937 225% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => 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: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => 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.