In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leevile was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
The writer of this analytical piece has drawn an optimistic conclusion, from disjoint and incomplete data that in a study of the reading habits of Leeville citizens misrepresented their true reading habits. To justify this conclusion the follow-up study is conducted by the researchers and they have found that the most frequently checked out material from the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novels. However, this argument contains certain loopholes which weaken the argument and raise many questions that are left unanswered in the argument.
Firstly, the argument does not provide any information about the time period between the two studies. It might be possible that the second study is conducted after a long time and also there can be a complete change in the preference of reading material by the public individuals. In other words, the greater the time difference between the two studies provides less accurate results. So, this information does not provide strong evidence for the conclusion that the author has drawn.
Secondly, the argument fails to account for a possibility that the public library contains more material related to mystery novels compared with the literary classics. This might be possible because mystery novels are easily available compared with literary classics. Also, novels are quite cheaper than literary classics.
Thirdly, the author has not provided any information about the citizens in the argument. Are both the studies conducted for the same number of people and also the group contains the same citizens or not? This weakens the argument. If every time the group of people is not exclusive, then there is a possibility of obtaining an unfavorable result. Moreover, in the first survey, the most of the citizens in the exclusive group like to read literary classics compared with other reading materials. So, it can be said that they mostly prefer literary classics. But, there can be a case that most of the remaining citizens, that are not included in the survey, prefers mystery novels. This may increase the percentage of citizens who prefer mystery novels.
Again, the author has not provided any statistical information about the number of citizens. This makes the conclusion dubious for the reader.
In general, it may be said that the writer has failed to make a convincing argument because of a complete absence of statistical data. No convincing reasoning is given. The argument ends with an entirely unjustified optimistic conclusion based on wishy-washy observations that are likely to be incorrect. To strengthen the argument, both the studies must have the same number and also the same citizens as a reference. In addition, the time period between two studies must be given and also required statistical information must be provided.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 25 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2310 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.145 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.659 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 182 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.96 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.759 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.68 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.526 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The writer of this analytical piece has ...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...left unanswered in the argument. Firstly, the argument does not provide a...
^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...clusion that the author has drawn. Secondly, the argument fails to account ...
^^^^
Line 12, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...cheaper than literary classics. Thirdly, the author has not provided any...
^^^^
Line 12, column 382, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e result. Moreover, in the first survey, the most of the citizens in the exclusiv...
^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of citizens who prefer mystery novels. Again, the author has not provided a...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...conclusion dubious for the reader. In general, it may be said that the writ...
^^^^
Line 18, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...istical information must be provided.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, in addition, in general, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2399.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3429844098 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73333744271 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.432071269488 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 754.2 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.0316319087 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.96 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.96 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.251995505471 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680343597162 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0804568406445 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.123486404706 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103998802512 0.0628817314937 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.96 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.