“The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the land will be sold to Smith, the proposed development will have disastrous consequences for our area. The company plans to build a small hotel on the land. Although they have promised to ensure the preservation of the sanctuary, there is no way that their plans will do anything but harm the sanctuary. There are no circumstances under which this sale will benefit our community, which relies on tourists who visit.”
The argument provided by the author on how a sale of land in the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve area to the Smith Corporation would definitely be harmful to both the sanctuary and the community is both unwarranted and not a convincing one. The author included numerous assumptions as a foundation of their arguments. If these assumptions are proved unwarranted, they could easily harm the argument when it is being analyzed under a careful perusal.
First and foremost, the author assumed that to preserve the magnificent wild bird population in the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve, they would need to always have one hundred percent of the land currently being used in the preserve area. To be able to stand strongly, the author should have provided facts or examples to build the case on. At a glance we could see that if the Smith Corporation only buys a small percentage of the land, there should be no big harm intended for the wildlife preservation in the area. The author could also provides us with exact number of the percentage and more background of the Smith Corporation. If for example, the Smith Corporation is well-known to have small hotels built in other areas of wild-life preservations before and managed to not harm the preservation, this argument could easily fall through. On the contrary, if the Smith Corporation are known for their non-environmental-friendly hotel built everywhere around the country, then the author's argument could stand much more strongly.
The assumption of inevitable harm to the community around Youngtown Wildlife Preserve that the author stated is not persuasive due to an obvious logical gap. The author mentioned that the community relies heavily on tourists who visit the area primarily to see the wild birds in the preservation area. However the author does not explain what aspects of the tourism business they depends on. This statement could be much improved by the author if he provides us with an example of how most of the community income comes through the rents of local guesthouses or rooms intended for the tourists, therefore a new hotel would hurt the economic condition of the residents.
On the other hand, if for instance, the residents earned most of their incomes from sales of foods and merchandises in the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve for tourists, the effect of the newly built hotel in the area will be quite the opposite. If previously tourists only visits for half-a-day due to the absence of estimable places to stay in, with the hotel, the tourists will be able to stay longer in the area and spend more money buying foods and merchandises from the local community. Without sufficient information in the residents' source of income, the argument could easily fell short and sounds unconvincing.
At the end of the day, we could conclude that the author needs to provide more information regarding what is needed for a wildlife bird preservation area to survive and thrive, and also what certain business the community around the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve currently relies on to bolster his argument. Without this informations, his arguments would only looks like a pile of assumptions which will crumple under sedulous scrutiny.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 537, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'provide'
Suggestion: provide
...tion in the area. The author could also provides us with exact number of the percentage ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 983, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...everywhere around the country, then the authors argument could stand much more strongly...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 303, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...he wild birds in the preservation area. However the author does not explain what aspect...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 381, Rule ID: NON3PRS_VERB[2]
Message: The pronoun 'they' must be used with a non-third-person form of a verb: 'depend'
Suggestion: depend
...at aspects of the tourism business they depends on. This statement could be much improv...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 315, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ies on to bolster his argument. Without this informations, his arguments would only ...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'for example', 'for instance', 'on the contrary', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.253996447602 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.131438721137 0.15541462614 85% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0781527531083 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.056838365897 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0248667850799 0.0272364105082 91% => OK
Prepositions: 0.13676731794 0.125424944231 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0319715808171 0.0416121511921 77% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.89742385332 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0319715808171 0.026700313972 120% => OK
Particles: 0.00177619893428 0.001811407834 98% => OK
Determiners: 0.143872113677 0.113004496875 127% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0301953818828 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0142095914742 0.0127820249294 111% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3211.0 2731.13054187 118% => OK
No of words: 526.0 446.07635468 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.10456273764 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78901763229 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.349809885932 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.277566539924 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.22433460076 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.1463878327 0.135150697306 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89742385332 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446768060837 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 51.7889197901 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 29.2222222222 23.2022227129 126% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.2546760521 57.7814097925 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.388888889 141.986410481 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.2222222222 23.2022227129 126% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.777777777778 0.724660767414 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 56.9788762146 51.9672348444 110% => OK
Elegance: 1.98333333333 1.8405768891 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.67163509407 0.441005458295 152% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.16533694535 0.135418324435 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0889853928568 0.0829849096947 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.657902373772 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141285399432 0.147661913831 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.348642676221 0.193483328276 180% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.13256326852 0.0970749176394 137% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.603302805887 0.42659136922 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.092519724988 0.0774707102158 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.523090010744 0.312017818177 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0742605740653 0.0698173142475 106% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.