In the last year’s mayoral election in Town T, candidate Miller led candidate Keating by a substantial margin in the polls leading up to the election. At the last minute, candidate Keating launched a widely viewed series of television advertisements that focused on preserving the natural environment of Town T, a topic neglected by candidate Miller. Subsequently, candidate Keating won the election by a narrow margin.
This year, if candidate Miller hopes to win the upcoming mayoral election, he must increase his coverage of the topic of preserving the natural environment of Town T.
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 author of the argument claims that the last minute advertisement on preserving the natural environment helped Keating win the election, and for Miller to win next election, he should increase the coverage of the same topic. The argument is based on mainly three severe assumptions, which fails to explain validity of the claim, they are as follows.
Firstly, the author assumes that the last minute advertisement showed changed people’s mind. However it is possible that the Keating supporters showed up late for the voting compared to Miller. Hence Miller was winning according to the counting. It is possible that they have different age group supporting and have different habits regarding voting timings. Author need to provide data on supporters voting habits to bolster the validity of this argument.
Secondly, the author assumes that the topic of the advertisement that made rest of the voter’s change their mind not due to sheer last minute presence on TV. It is possible that most of the people are ambivalent about their decision to vote Miller or Keating and the last minute presence on television influenced or biased their mind towards Keating than Miller. Many times, people have tendency to lean towards flashy and attractive things like advertisement on TV rather than the content and the importance of the topic. It is possible that the advertisement was well made or presented and the sheer presence of Keating influenced people about the leader qualities which were portrayed. Hence covering preservation of natural environment topic might not be weighed as much as asserted by the author.
Even if we assume that the preservation of the natural environment advertisement changed people’s mind at the last minute, it is possible that the topic won’t be hot favorite for the upcoming election. Maybe there is different issue that weighs more. It is possible that Keating might fix the issue during her time in the office and that issue will be mitigated significantly by the time of upcoming election. To increase the chances of Miller’s winning, he might have to highlight topics which are crucial at that time in the people’s mind rather than sticking to something that worked in the last election.
There are severe assumptions that weakens the arguments validity such as assumption that Millers supporters did not vote in the later half of the voting time, importance of advertisement topic and the same topic will be equally important in the upcoming elections.
Comments
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 407 350
No. of Characters: 2055 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.492 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.049 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.663 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.941 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.92 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.363 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.578 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 99, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ment showed changed people's mind. However it is possible that the Keating support...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 200, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...late for the voting compared to Miller. Hence Miller was winning according to the cou...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 463, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... bolster the validity of this argument. Secondly, the author assumes that the to...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 695, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
... leader qualities which were portrayed. Hence covering preservation of natural enviro...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 47, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...are severe assumptions that weakens the arguments validity such as assumption that Miller...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 266, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ly important in the upcoming elections.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, well, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2146.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28571428571 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83896031983 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.433497536946 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 661.5 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.987253548 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.235294118 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8823529412 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11764705882 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178938085313 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0637898768809 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0574632397405 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103969499186 0.128457276422 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0440866788606 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.