The argument asserts that Pleasantville charitable organizations provide opportunities for teenagers to engage in community service. It claims to have a significant decline in the number of teenage volunteers and requests the Pleasantville school board to take measures in order to increase the number of volunteers. The argument holds unwarranted assumptions about the school teenagers to mandatorily complete the program for about 40 hours prior to graduation. There are significant facts that need to be analyzed before engaging school students in community service.
To begin with, is Pleasantville school board the only school that is present in the community? The author failed to mention about the engagement from the other schools in the locality. If Pleasantville school teenagers participated the highest compared to the other schools, then the argument regarding the school students do not substantiate enough.
Although, the teachers, parents and other community members agree with the value of community service, it is the students who must have the innate predilection for community service. People cannot achieve a service by force. In case, the students of Pleasantville were associated with some other activities like sports, extra curricular and academics, they fail to allocate time for community service which they are very least bothered about. What if the teenagers had many priorities ahead? A community service is a secondary option for most of the students. Only a meagre amount of students participate.
Creating a new rule about completing the 40 hours of community service compulsory prior to graduation cannot assure about the willingness of the students to participate wholeheartedly. For instance, an unwilling teenager can be frustrated to a level that he/she can be ferocious in rendering service to the community which is not a good manner to deal with. A commitment towards the charity is not going to be developed by intense pressure. Conversely, the charitable organizations will incur loss to their insights and be drastically affected by the student's frivolous behavior.
Being said the reasons, teenagers being the most vulnerable part of the society must be handled with care. They are like gossamer butterfly wings who can easily break apart when pushed or pulled by force. Thus, the argument seems fallacious with most of the facts and is just a theory that is being said without any pragmatic approach.
e-rater score 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 382 350
No. of Characters: 2030 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.421 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.314 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.965 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.739 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.3 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 336, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng said without any pragmatic approach.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, conversely, if, regarding, second, so, then, thus, for instance, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2070.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.43307086614 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02496370423 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517060367454 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 648.9 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.5344189637 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.5 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.05 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.15 5.70786347227 73% => OK
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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.292353517272 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0901424508256 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100740006985 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.16177499706 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.135185715469 0.0628817314937 215% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.72 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.