"In our region of Trillura, the majority of money spent on the schools that most students attend—the city-run public schools—comes from taxes that each city government collects. The region's cities differ, however, in the budgetary priority they give to public education. For example, both as a proportion of its overall tax revenues and in absolute terms, Parson City has recently spent almost twice as much per year as Blue City has for its public schools—even though both cities have about the same number of residents. Clearly, Parson City residents place a higher value on providing a good education in public schools than Blue City residents do."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In this paragraph, the author insists that people who live in Parson City give more weight to public education than people in Blue City in support with several reasons. Though, this claim is unconvincing because it inferred from several unsubstantiated assumptions without valid evidence. In order to make this argument reliable, close scrutiny that bolsters author’s claim needs to be added. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to criticism.
First and foremost, the letter makes a mistake in relating money spent to schools and ardor of residents for better education from the passage citing their budgets. People who have decision are executives of government, not residents. The residents can purport their opinion but it is hard to say that responsibility of low expenses for schooling is due to an unenthusiastic idea. So, to assess this supposition, we need to investigate whether residents in both cities agree with their education policy. If the thought of residents is identical with policies, then it will anneal the assertion. If not, this presumption will be invalid.
Furthermore, mentioning the comparison of the budgets allocated to schools between two cities, the letter presumes that the more they investigate, the more their interest in education will represent. However, the money is not the only element enhancing the quality of the education. There are also many ways to contribute to schooling. Non-fiscal supports like persistent checking ability of the children, encouraging the children to think more and giving a good situation to study can be a criterion of concern for the public education. For supporting the opinion of the letter, a questionnaire about the actions of the parents is required. If there are other actions at home for their children, it is hard to say that their attention is low. If not, the assertion will be valid.
Last but not least, it is possible to guess that the letter presumes that the other conditions of two cities about the public education are same without the budgets from the passage referring only difference of the money. Two cities might have different numbers of students and schools. Even though the numbers are the same, the quality of school infrastructure can be quite different to other, so they need more money to rebuild their buildings which requires a lot of money. So, we need to examine whether there is a difference between the two cities. The difference of conditions will lead this supposition unreasonable, but if the conditions of the two cities are same, then this presumption will be appropriate.
In conclusion, the argument lacks clarity as many details seem to be omitted for such an important issue. To better assess the argument, the author needs to provide more supplementary investigation including the level of consent with their policy, action in the home, and the difference of conditions. Lacking such information, the author’s claim remains far-fetched.
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2410 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.084 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.827 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.96 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.198 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.254 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.469 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.058 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 331, Rule ID: CLOSE_SCRUTINY[1]
Message: Use simply 'scrutiny'.
Suggestion: scrutiny
...n order to make this argument reliable, close scrutiny that bolsters author's claim needs...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2492.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25738396624 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96576152501 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478902953586 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 773.1 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 55.6718384823 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.68 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.96 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.92 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145885381745 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0393864386537 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.04922599249 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0806012935627 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565193598002 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.