The author of the argument states that just because television advertisements launched just before the elections helped Keating win the elections, Miller (the losing candidate) must do the same this year in order to win the elections this year. There are a number of unstated assumptions that the author doesn't consider while reaching his final conclusion. Without shedding some more light on these assumptions, the author's argument conclusion cannot be considered valid.
Firstly, the author assumes that the last-minute launch of the ads campaign had any substantial effect on the number of votes cast to Keating. It is possible, that launching the ads campaign had very little effect on Keating's win and there were other factors that helped Keating. Maybe some other candidate dropped out last minute and those votes went to Keating. The author should provide evidence for the assumption that launching the campaign helped Keating. If this assumption proves unwarranted, then it is futile to increase coverage of the topic of preserving the natural environment of Town T.
Even if the author can prove that the ads campaign had a positive effect on Keating's win, there is still a chance that people will still not vote for Miller even if he increases the coverage of the environmental issue. It is entirely possible that the coverage of the environmental issue might not convince people in the same way as it did last year. It might be the case that even if the campaign was successful and people voted for Keating, he didn't take any action and people now feel hoodwinked. They may now hold grudges against these kinds of artifices and this may cause Miller to lose votes rather than gaining them. If the author of this paragraph can prove that this is not the case and people will actually vote for Miller if he launched the campaign, only then should Miller should consider covering this topic.
Considering all the above-stated assumptions are true and having an ads campaign on the environmental issue will have a positive effect on the number of votes cast to Keating, it is still not clear whether the number of votes cast to Miller will help him in winning the election. It is assumed that no other candidate will do this campaign. If all the candidates covered the environmental issue in their campaign and it had a positive effect for all the candidates, then there will be no benefit of doing this campaign as the vote count might not change very much for all the candidates. If this assumption is refuted, then it is pointless to spend money on the environmental campaign.
As we can see that there are a lot of assumptions that have been made before concluding the argument. These include assuming that the ads campaign had a positive effect on Keating's win and it will have the same effect this year. Also, it is assumed that no other candidate will do this and this campaign will solely help Miller. Without proving these unstated assumptions, the author's conclusion is bereft of critical foundations.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 513 350
No. of Characters: 2474 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.759 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.823 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.369 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.345 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.154 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 303, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...of unstated assumptions that the author doesnt consider while reaching his final concl...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 415, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...me more light on these assumptions, the authors argument conclusion cannot be considere...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 447, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...essful and people voted for Keating, he didnt take any action and people now feel hoo...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 686, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...nd money on the environmental campaign. As we can see that there are a lot of assu...
^^^^
Line 5, column 378, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...proving these unstated assumptions, the authors conclusion is bereft of critical founda...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, may, so, still, then, while, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 54.0 28.8173652695 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2510.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 511.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.91193737769 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75450408675 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64297723046 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.399217221135 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9347901463 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.523809524 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3333333333 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.80952380952 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.146219883719 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528026296891 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.061720839944 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100783107162 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0505266988342 0.0628817314937 80% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.73 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.