“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 primarily to see our magnificent bird population.”
The author argues here that the development of land by the Smith Corporation will be disastrous as the land is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife preserve. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoning and seems to distort the views of the situation by manipulating the facts. To justify the argument, the author reasons that the development of the sanctuary land can be detrimental to birds living there and also to the community as it will lose a lot of tourists around the year. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation.
First of all the argument readily assumes that the wildlife preserve is essential for the survival of 300 bird species living in the wildlife preserve. This is merely an assumption without much solid ground as the author does not know if the birds are only dependent on the preserve. Some birds could be getting food from the humans as they feed them or leave food for them.
The argument readily claims that also points out that the development of the land can also lead to a decrease in tourists that come in the area. this again is a weekly supported claim as it does not take onto account that the Smith Corporation wants to use only a small piece of land to build a hotel which consequently would lead to an increase in tourists. Contrary to the author's arguments that it could be disastrous to the community, it will also generate employment in the area and invite tourists to live in the sanctuary itself which will in turn increase the revenue.
Finally the author assumes that although, the company has assured that they will be taking care of the sanctuary, they will only be harming the sanctuary which is made without any credibility or support. A careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support in several critical aspects and raises skeptical questions.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. to bolster it further, the author should provide better concrete evidence perhaps by a reliable survey of all the bird species in the land, a comparative study of the before and after situations so that people are better able to assess the situation and take a clear
stand if the comapny should be allowed to develop the land.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- partly OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 400 350
No. of Characters: 1909 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.472 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.772 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 141 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.769 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.328 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.692 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.688 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 613, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors recommendation. First of all the arg...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 146, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...ease in tourists that come in the area. this again is a weekly supported claim as it...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...h will in turn increase the revenue. Finally the author assumes that although, the c...
^^^^^^^
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
...ptical questions. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 67, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: To
... argument is unpersuasive as it stands. to bolster it further, the author should p...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, however, if, so, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1947.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 400.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8675 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62411770887 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 187.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4675 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 605.7 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 62.4416870825 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.071428571 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5714285714 23.324526521 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.71428571429 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304069000383 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101274732685 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0934701001129 0.0701772020484 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151781349351 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0647908738273 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.