Membership in Oak City’s Civic Club – a club whose primary objective is to discuss local business – should continue to be restricted to people who live in Oak city. People who work in Oak city but who live elsewhere cannot truly understand the business and politics of the city. It is important to restrict pay city taxes and therefore only residents understand how the money could best be used to improve the city. At any rate, restricting membership in this way is unlikely to disappoint many of the nonresidents employed in Oak city, since neighboring Elm city’s Civic Club has always had an open membership policy, and only twenty-five nonresidents have joined Elm city’s Club in the last ten years.
In a letter appeared in the Oak city Gazette, a local newspaper conclude that membership in Oak City’s civic club restricted to only residents of that city because nonresidents do not understand politics and business and they are not paying taxes in Oak city. This paper also mentioned that nonresidents have not best ideas how to use money and solve other issues of local policies with an example of Elm city’s club and their low number nonresidents in last ten years. This letter has a merit though it has many unaddressed assumption, lack of evidence. This argument is deeply flawed.
First of all it stated that nonresidents do not understand local business and politics but in contrary they are involved in local business and politics. They are directly affected with any changes made in policies made by this local club decision taken by only residents. Including nonresidents in club might get more beneficial as they can give different suggestion for tackling same problem by his own city’s experience. In addition, some nonresidents are spending more time in this city than their hometown and changing in some policies lead to more problem for these commuters as an example of changing in traveling cost , changing daily work hour and wages, changing business society in city. These all leads to inconvenience to if nonresidents are not part of club.
Here, One point is made out that nonresidents do not understand how could money could best be used to improve city and they do not pay taxes. This statement leads to chaos as nonresidents paying taxes by country rule and they want equality in every regional part. Plus, by this type of attitude of city’s club discourage talents of other city. If someone from other city wants to do research or invest in any city then he wants an equality by residents of that city and by this type of attitude natural talents transfer might be stuck without progress. As Peter Thiel said, “ Lone genius might create a wonderful piece of art or any invention but for building can’t build a whole industry”. For making progress club has to change attitude towards nonresidents.
Paper mentioned example of Elm city’s club’s open membership policy though they have only 25 nonresidents in that club but author forgets to consider other cause for this result as high membership fee, total number of nonresidents and if they have an own club for nonresidents.
The argument given above weakens the basis of the suggestion given in the letter. Nonresidents may not be living in the city, but they are irremovable part of city. Plus by having them add more money to club which is in favor of club. So instead of putting blindly trust in this paper and it’s suggestion, there is a need of considering more valid points.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 470 350
No. of Characters: 2250 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.656 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.787 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.606 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.994 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 315, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[4]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'not the best'.
Suggestion: not the best
...r also mentioned that nonresidents have not best ideas how to use money and solve other ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 319, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'bested', 'welled'.
Suggestion: bested; welled
...so mentioned that nonresidents have not best ideas how to use money and solve other ...
^^^^
Line 1, 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.
...addressed assumption, lack of evidence. This argument is deeply flawed. First of ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 630, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...an example of changing in traveling cost , changing daily work hour and wages, cha...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, so, then, as to, in addition, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2350.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 471.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.98938428875 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65859790218 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78857345488 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475583864119 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8632966589 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.5 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.55 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.231531568193 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0762293775252 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0800848240423 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147154785769 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557418673247 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => 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: 11.96 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.73 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.