Read the statement and the instructions that follow it, and then make any notes that will help you plan your response. Begin typing your response at the bottom of the screen. You have 30 minutes in which to complete the essay.
"The term 'couch potato' may seem harmless, but television watching has been shown to shift mental activity from higher brain regions to lower ones. That is because TV is a one-way medium, reducing one's tendency to engage and interact. Using a computer, on the other hand, is a two-way activity that encourages interaction. Since many television watchers report feeling sluggish and even sleepy after several hours' viewing, it is clear that switching off the TV and switching on the computer will result in increased energy, brain activity, and mental sharpness."
Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Watching television being one-way medium, reduces one’s ability to interact and engage. On the other hand, using computers being two-way activity results in increased activity and sharpness. Stated this way the argument fails to refer to several essential factors, on which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumption, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author states that watching television being one-way activity, reduces one’s ability to interact and engage. From the above argument stated by the author one comes to logical deduction that that the activity of watching is one way medium and the main reason for the reduced interaction and engagement. Instead the author renders the entire blame on the television without understanding that the activity is the main reason. Based on this erroneous understanding the author further goes on to state that mere shifting from television to the computers would solve the problem. The argument could have been clearer if the author explained how switching to computers would make the activity of watching an interactive activity.
Secondly, the argument readily assumes that watching television reduces ability to interact and engage. The only evidence it provides is that television is one way medium. Clearly this reason is not sufficient to establish a link between reduced ability to interact and engage and watching television. Because though being one way medium, watching television is a great activity to increase one knowledge about various subject. Which helps in increased confidence and knowledge to interact and engage. Watching television can be great medium to learn to communicate which would rather help in interacting and engaging. Similarly, author provides no evidence on how using computers would make one more interactive and sharper other than it being two-way activity. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. The author with all the evidence provided, logically points the reason of the cause towards the activity of watching television rather than the device television. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-11-28 | ashish darekar | 65 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. need to argue against the report: 'many television watchers report...'
2. need to argue against 'switching off the TV and switching on the computer will result in increased energy, brain activity, and mental sharpness.'
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 415 350
No. of Characters: 2252 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.513 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.427 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.688 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 149 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 105 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.483 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.318 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 280, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
... to several essential factors, on which the it could be evaluated. The conclusion reli...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 382, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
..., for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is rather weak, unconvinci...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 204, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...e author one comes to logical deduction that that the activity of watching is one way med...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 321, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...the reduced interaction and engagement. Instead the author renders the entire blame on ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, if, second, secondly, similarly, so, therefore, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2315.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.57831325301 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78071036309 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.457831325301 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 734.4 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8666647267 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.227272727 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8636363636 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.68181818182 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => 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: 0.0269278179426 0.218282227539 12% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0119193865081 0.0743258471296 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0186260483424 0.0701772020484 27% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0190505831368 0.128457276422 15% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00591633408945 0.0628817314937 9% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.28 48.3550499002 75% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.08 12.5979740519 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.