The prompt suggest implementing a bold registration plan for school elections to ensure more voter are attracted. But the suggestion barely has any supporting grounds and also leaves several salient points unanswered. Let me elaborate in three main point:
At first glance, prior registration seems a sure way to make voters commit to the process however, there remains two underlying factors that must be answered: First, does registration guarantee decrease in election absenteeism? The writer must address this question by providing official survey and data from municipal or general elections since they are already existent and are chosen to serve as a model for school Elections. Secondly, adding this extra bureaucratic step would galvanize the public into stronger participation or would it be heavily detrimental to its original purpose? Since the participation is already low, mandatory registration might even dispassionate the tenuous voting participation.
Additionally, the cause for the public indifference is not examined. The writer must investigate what group of Lowville citizens are concerned by the school polls. If there aren’t many households with school age children in Lowville, the lack of interest can be justified. Moreover, the citizens may not be cognizant of the occurrence of these of these elections or misinformed on their importance; thus it is imperative to further study the pertinent facts about the eligible voters.
Lastly, the article’s only consternation is ensuring participation yet fails to gain any knowledge of possible deterrents. E.g. the pre-voting rights such as being a citizens might heavily narrow down the potential voters in case many of the residents are immigrants who already have a stake in town affairs but not a voice in its plans.
The writers views to whet public interest in local elections while lacking depth, is has merits. Should the author’s views are presented with further supporting evidence and be subjected to further scrutiny on more facets, they may earn a more sound reasoning for being processed.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 323 350
No. of Characters: 1721 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.239 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.328 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.91 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.765 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.643 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.299 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.018 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 336, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'of these'.
Suggestion: of these
... may not be cognizant of the occurrence of these of these elections or misinformed on their impor...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 13, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'view'.
Suggestion: view
... not a voice in its plans. The writers views to whet public interest in local electi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, e.g., first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, while, 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: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1768.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 322.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.49068322981 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23607819155 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00506882458 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.633540372671 0.468620217663 135% => OK
syllable_count: 549.0 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.3671003334 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.285714286 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.28571428571 5.70786347227 128% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.256781954894 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0762381635577 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0430493305023 0.0701772020484 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.125367049246 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0581463634445 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.34 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.