"Mayor Brown was recently re-elected by a clear majority of 52 percent of Monroetown's voters.
Her re-election, however, does not show that most people in our town favored Mayor Brown's
proposal for tax reduction over that of her opponent, Mr. Greene, who proposed raising taxes
to improve education. It has been shown that voters nationwide tend to re-elect people already
in office, regardless of candidates' proposals. In fact, a local survey after the election showed
most people in Monroetown disagreed with Mayor Brown's proposal. Clearly most people in
Monroetown favor improving education and therefore approve of Mr. Greene's proposal
despite the fact that they did not vote for him."
The author of this editorial concludes that most Monroetown residents favor Greene's proposal to raise taxes in order to improve education over Brown's proposal to cut taxes, even though Brown defeated Greene by way of a majority vote in a recent mayoral election. To support this conclusion, the author points out to a nationwide tendency to re-elect people already elected previously regardless of their positions. The author also talks about a survey taken after the election that showed most Monroetown residents oppose Brown's proposal. As the following discussion shows, the author's argument is not supported by compelling evidences.
Firstly, raising taxes does not assert that the quality of education will improve in the town. Maybe, the mayor's proposal for reducing taxes does not affect education in any way. There are many other ways to improve education in the town like hiring experienced teachers, motivating students to become more engrossed towards studies any many other ways. Raising taxes as proposed by the opposition, Mr Greene cannot be the only solution to it.
Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that the nationwide tendency applies specifically to Monroetown residents. Nationwide voters cannot be directly compared to Monroetown residents. Without any evidence that Monroetown residents reflect general nationwide tendency, it is entirely possible that Monroetown residents vote strictly according to their position on the issues. Additionally, the author fails to indicate how much time passed between the election and the survey showing that most Monroetown residents oppose her proposal. If the survey was conducted immediately after the elections, the fact that the survey contradicted the elections would cast severe doubts against the ruling Brown's party. However, in my opinion the survey was conducted long after the elections which may have caused people to change their opinions about the ruling party over time.
Finally, the author talking about the people not voting Mr Greene inspite of approving his proposals about improving education seems absurd. The author's claim of people opposing Brown's proposal and in favor of the proposals set forth by Greene is unconvicing. To strenghten the argument the author must provide clear evidence that Monroetown residents voted contrary to their own positions on the issues when they re-elected Brown. To sum it up, in my opinion the author's claims lies on frail surveys that do not provide powerful evidences to support the claims. To bolster his claims, he must bring in more evidences that support it.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 401 350
No. of Characters: 2160 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.475 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.387 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.619 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.468 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.368 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.534 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... As the following discussion shows, the authors argument is not supported by compelling...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 107, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mayors'' or 'mayor's'?
Suggestion: mayors'; mayor's
...on will improve in the town. Maybe, the mayors proposal for reducing taxes does not af...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 234, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... and in favor of the proposals set forth by Greene is unconvicing. To strenghten ...
^^
Line 7, column 522, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ies on frail surveys that do not provide powerful evidences to support the claims...
^^
Line 7, column 566, 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.
...werful evidences to support the claims. To bolster his claims, he must bring in mo...
^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... more evidences that support it.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, talking about, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2205.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 401.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49875311721 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47492842339 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6655659592 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533665835411 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8812373505 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.052631579 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1052631579 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.94736842105 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.312215592 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0920650373521 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07129953437 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183619529676 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0638413864609 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.