In order to save a considerable amount of money, Rockingham’s century-old town hall should be torn down and replaced by the larger and more energy-efficient building that some citizens have proposed. The old town hall is too small to comfortably accommodate the number of people who are employed by the town. In addition, it is very costly to heat the old hall in winter and cool it in summer. The new, larger building would be more energy efficient, costing less per square foot to heat and cool than the old hall. Furthermore, it would be possible to rent out some of the space in the new building, thereby generating income for the town of Rockingham.”
The argument suggests that to save money, Rockingham old twon should be destructed and build new one which is larger and has more energy efficient building. Although, building new town could have several benefits, the author has flawed in many points to defend his suggestion. The author to persuade the reader by his argumnet should provide some evidence and answers for some questions to be evaluate this argument if holds water.
First, The argument said that to save money should rebuild now town and turn down the old one. The author assumes that the building new town and destroying one will cost less. The author neglegts that to build a new town would require to construct whole new town with all amenties which perhapes cost more than comparing to fix or evolve the old one. Thus, if the author couldn’t provide data about how much will cost it if build new town vs, evolve the old town? to show that it will cost less or more, this will attack the conclusion drawn in the argument.
Second, the argument states that based on some citizens’proposal, the author displayed his solution in saving money. The author stated his conclusion and his view in sloving the problem based on some people which is not necessarily represent the whole residents in the old town. The writer ignored that the sample size is important to take such a crucial decision. Thus, to make his relyiance worthwhile, he sould do a survey and display statistic data shows how many people accept the proposal and has predisposition to move to a new town. If the argument couldn’t answer this question and provide the reader with accurate data that means the argument is considerably flawed.
Third, the argument has a mistake in drawing his conclusion about renting some of space to increase the income, due to the author forgot that one of the problems that he displayed that there are plenty of people and there is no enough space to cover all employees. Therefore, if that is right and there are so many employees in such a small town and there is no comaptibale numbers between the employess and the living space, that may be result in no more space which is empty and ready for rent as he imagined. Thus, if the above situation is valid that means the above conclusion is signifcantly weakened.
In conclusion, The argument as it stands now is full of holes that don’t hold water in order to the author depends on unwarranted assumptions and relies on unguaranteed evidence. Therefore, the author should provide the number of people who see that the proposal is suitable for them, comparison between the costs of evolving the systems of old town and the conctracting a new one, and provide a clear evidence that will be empty space in the new town which will be ready for renting. All the above missed points make this argument is not vaild and dosen’t have logic to be persuasive.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 19 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 505 350
No. of Characters: 2318 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.74 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.59 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.39 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.056 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.094 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 237, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'constructing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'require' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: constructing
... that to build a new town would require to construct whole new town with all amenties which ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 466, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: To
...build new town vs, evolve the old town? to show that it will cost less or more, th...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... the argument is considerably flawed. Third, the argument has a mistake in dra...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, second, so, therefore, third, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2390.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.78 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55625976771 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 726.3 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.8514886498 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.789473684 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3157894737 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78947368421 5.70786347227 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.253195355532 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894039784902 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0768486633746 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155507214765 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071099196831 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.74 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.