In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University
of Waymarsh, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading
material. However, a second study conducted by the same researchers found that
the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in
Waymarsh was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the
respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading preferences.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the
argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and
what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the above memo, the author argues that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading preferences as literary classics. The author supports his argument based on the premise that most of the checked-out books in the library were mystery novels, However, before evaluating the author’s argument three unstated assumptions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author argues that most respondents to the survey said that they prefer literary classics as reading material without providing any necessitate evidence regarding the authenticity of the survey. There is a possibility that only 100 people responded to that survey. Then, concluding something based on a very small sample size is seriously unwarranted and one can not argue that most people prefer literary classics as their reading metrical. If the author is able to provide more admissible evidence perhaps in the form of a frequency distribution of each preferable genre of the participants then it will be possible to evaluate the author’s argument to a certain extent.
Secondly, the author argues that the second study of each of the public libraries reveals that most of the checked-out books are mystery novels without providing any information about the authenticity of the study. Perhaps most of the public libraries in Waymarsh city do not have a vast collection of books of literary classics. Moreover, maybe most respondents in the first study borrow books from the internet instead of visiting a public library. Then one can not argue that people do not like to read books of literary classics. If any one of the above scenarios is true then the author’s argument holds no water. If the author is able to provide more information perhaps in a form of a statistical data chart of the collection of books in public libraries then the author’s argument will strengthen.
Thirdly, the author concludes that since the most checked-out books in each public library were mystery novels, people in the first study were not veracity about their responses. There is a feasibility that those people who responded to the survey do not often visit the public library. Maybe most of them visit the nearby university library then one cannot argue that people in the first study misrepresented their response. The author has to provide more legitimate evidence regarding the respondents to the first study perhaps in a form of a systematic research study of their source of reading materials to rectify his argument otherwise, the author’s argument holds no water.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument is seriously flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can elucidate the three unstated assumptions above and offer more evidence perhaps in the form of a systematic research study then it will be possible to evaluate the proposed recommendation that people in the first study misrepresented their respondents regarding their reading preferences.
Comments
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: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2455 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.179 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.816 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.522 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.416 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.586 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 456, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ary classics as their reading metrical. If the author is able to provide more admi...
^^
Line 5, column 255, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... Perhaps most of the public libraries in Waymarsh city do not have a vast collect...
^^
Line 5, column 536, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ike to read books of literary classics. If any one of the above scenarios is true ...
^^
Line 5, column 621, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n the author’s argument holds no water. If the author is able to provide more info...
^^
Line 5, column 693, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... more information perhaps in a form of a statistical data chart of the collection...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.29957805907 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90514832156 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 170.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.35864978903 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 792.0 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3772638341 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.555555556 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3333333333 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.227760623679 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0910125823397 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0666142823337 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149427075359 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0237942892632 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 36.63 48.3550499002 76% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.76 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.