The argument that ownership of dogs as pets have longer, healthier lives and reduces the risk of heart disease may seem tenable and logical at a first glance. However, a more closer look will reveal that this argument is fundamentally flawed and unconvincing.
Firstly, the author based his assumption on a study, the manner in which the study was made is not provided. What mode of study was adopted and who are the people that participated in the study? The age bracket of the people, the sex of the people that participated in the study. All of these are not provided by the author.
Secondly the author based his assumption on the fact that when a person own a dog, his risk of having a heart disease is reduced. There are a lot things that can be done by a person to reduce heart disease, like good diets, exercise, rest, among others. There is no link between dog ownership and all the things mentioned. The author did not provide enough evidence that links dog ownership to a good heart condition.
The author further states that the partnership between Sherwood hospital and Sherwood Animal institute will improve Sherwood Animal Institute publicity, the author assumed that the hospital recommendation will lead to more patronage and publicity for the Sherwood Animal Institute, while this may infact lead to more sales and publicity, the evidence provided by the author is not convincing enough. The patients and clients of the hospital might decide to buy their dogs somewhere else, except where it is clear that Sherwood Animal Institute sells a particular breed of dog that is more effective and can only be found there.
In conclusion, the authors argument rests on unsupported assumption and is thus unpersuasive.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 292 350
No. of Characters: 1405 1500
No. of Different Words: 143 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.134 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.812 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.555 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.148 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.462 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.661 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 171, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'closer' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: closer
...d logical at a first glance. However, a more closer look will reveal that this argument is ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 360, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...les and publicity, the evidence provided by the author is not convincing enough. ...
^^
Line 7, column 402, 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.
...by the author is not convincing enough. The patients and clients of the hospital mi...
^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... be found there. In conclusion, the authors argument rests on unsupported assumptio...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, however, look, may, second, secondly, so, thus, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 55.5748502994 54% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1449.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 292.0 441.139720559 66% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96232876712 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.13376432452 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65124901081 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.513698630137 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 88.8093496864 57.8364921388 154% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.461538462 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4615384615 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.46153846154 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183494084799 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0634160068966 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.059916400226 0.0701772020484 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0895044438877 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0542313931521 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.