The following is taken from the editorial section of the local newspaper in Rockingham.
"In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham's century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham."
The argument stating that the Rockingham’s century old town hall must be torn down in lieu of savings in terms of considerable amount of money tends to be infirm based on the limiting evidence.
The article fails to elucidate the crowd size that currently works at the Old town hall and how replacing it with the new larger town hall would assist in accommodating the crowd. A reader would require a substantial amount of information on the crowd size, instead of aligning with the decision to take down the century old town hall, which is an important and probably a landmark of Rockingham.
Moreover the temperature regulation problems cited by the article provide the reader with no explanation of its occurring at the first place. Eviscerating a century old landmark and replacing it with a newer version citing temperature regulation problems without actually addressing the cause of the problem renders the argument feeble. Without the proper insights on the cause of the temperature regulation problems in the old townhall it is impossible to evaluate and estimate the solutions to the problem. The extent of the issue has not been represented in this case which leads the reader to question how much of a problem it really is.
The salient feature of the new structure, the energy efficacy of the new town hall has been stressed upon by the article without shedding any light on the methods of achieving that. The article does not cater to the reader the important insights and comparison between the two town halls based on their energy expenses and how the new town hall plans to be more efficient than its former. One of the reasons cited for the energy efficacy of the new town hall is entirely based on the purported temperature regulation challenges faced, which has been previously discussed and found out to be lacking in evidence.
Finally the article, does not discuss and limn, how renting out space from the supposed larger new townhall will be generating higher revenue than renting out space around the new town hall. Building a larger town hall will result in encroaching on public land and renting out a piece of the same piece of land makes no sense. If the same piece of land that after being encroached, gets rented out to the public, only in this case the town hall remains untouched would probably generate a similar magnitude of funds. Thus without a clear discussion and reasoning on how the revenue generation is intended the argument is rendered vague.
Thus considering the above reasons it is delineated how the argument falters in some aspects and cannot be enough for the tearing down the Old town hall.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 15 15
No. of Words: 450 350
No. of Characters: 2163 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.606 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.807 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.581 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.279 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.386 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.386 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...and probably a landmark of Rockingham. Moreover the temperature regulation problems cit...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 182, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...light on the methods of achieving that. The article does not cater to the reader th...
^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
... found out to be lacking in evidence. Finally the article, does not discuss and limn,...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 518, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... generate a similar magnitude of funds. Thus without a clear discussion and reasonin...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, finally, first, if, moreover, really, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2200.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 450.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88888888889 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62359286212 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448888888889 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 684.9 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 30.9038652742 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 146.666666667 119.503703932 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.0 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73333333333 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.260861041879 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092489524859 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0866408022832 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156383463924 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.098815409024 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.