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 proposes that candidate Miller has to increase his coverage on the topic of natural environment if he hopes to win the upcoming mayoral election. While it may be true that candidate Keating won the election the previous year due to the advertisement that focused on preserving the natural environment in which he launched, there is not enough evidence to proof the validity of the argument.
The author assumed that candidate keating won simply because of that advertisement without backing it up with facts. There was no survey carried out on the voters to know if they voted for him due to the advertisement. The winning could have happened to due different reasons. It could be that the majority that voted for him didn’t vote on time. It could even be that the region where he’s mostly supported had network issues that didn’t hindered them from voting on time. If research was carried out by the author then he needs to state them clearly to back up his claims.
Also, the author assumes that the problem of preservation of natural environment is still existing. As at the time of the election the previous year, the people might have been dealing with issues concerning the preservation of the natural environment which made them vote for candidate Keating but the question now is, is that problem still existing? Even if the problem of natural environment preservation does still exist, what if the people don’t want to be deceived again by any fallacious advertisement which controlled their votes the previous year. It could even be that there are more prominent issue of concern to the town such as employment, bad roads and many more which the people would like the new government to address other than preserving the natural environment which the author expect the intending mayor to solve.
Mayor Keating may even decide to contest again. The author didn’t say anything concerning a possible re-election of the current Mayor. If indeed the people voted him due to the preservation of the natural environment, he might have implemented some rules or carried out some activities in support of the preservation that the people may like and want him to continue. If this is the case, then candidate Miller may stand no chance of winning.
While this argument presents an interesting hypothesis, the data presented is not enough to proof the validity of the argument. The winning of candidate Keating cannot simply be tied to series of advertisement he launched as there are no facts to back up it’s credibility. Furthermore, even if the advertisement influenced the voters choice of their candidate in the previous year, the author cannot be certain that it would still work for this coming election as people change, the environment changes and the reasons for their decisions can also change.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 476 350
No. of Characters: 2304 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.671 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.84 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.677 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.053 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.309 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.193 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'networked'.
Suggestion: networked
... region where he’s mostly supported had network issues that didn’t hindered them from v...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 413, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'networked'.
Suggestion: networked
... region where he’s mostly supported had network issues that didn’t hindered them from v...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 475, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” 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.
...dn’t hindered them from voting on time. If research was carried out by the author ...
^^
Line 5, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...m of preservation of natural environment is still existing. As at the time of the...
^^
Line 7, column 128, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng a possible re-election of the current Mayor. If indeed the people voted him d...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, so, still, then, while, as to, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 31.0 16.3942115768 189% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2367.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01483050847 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73196256746 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438559322034 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 725.4 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.0024930334 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.578947368 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8421052632 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73684210526 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => 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: 0.192136706071 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0707908270845 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.073616656933 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.128833414154 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0499383485705 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => 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.