In a study of the reading habits of Waymarsh citizens conducted by the University of Waymarsh, most respondents said that 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 habits.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
This argument is well presented yet far-fetched. It lays a claim that because the second finding is not the same as first, the first research must be wrong. Nevertheless, due to several flaws after scrutiny, the argument has to establish some piece of evidence to make the statement more convincing.
First of all, a problem arises in the argument is that the first research does not show information on how many respondents they get on this research. This contention is open to a number of interpretations. Perhaps, the research does not have any incorrect, but the numbers of the respondents are not enough so that they cannot represent the whole group of citizens in Waymarsh. Alternatively, again, maybe the research is not wrong, but the age scope on their research respondents is too small, or cannot represent the people in Waymarsh. Hence, without accounting for and ruling out other likely explanations, by no means the author contends that the wrong of the research can be conducted by the second purport.
In addition, another question is the investigation in the library does not consist with the first research. It may be right the most frequently books are not literary classics, but it is entirely possible that many citizens have already read all literary classics and therefore want to find something different reading materials, so the library's checking rate is not the same as the first study. Also, does the checking rate in the library can represent the all Waymarsh's people? In order to confirm his point of view, the writer should pay close heed to as well as address the representative probabilities mention above. Only specific researches data on both studies are the key to bolstering his advice.
Ultimately, even if the previous assumptions might turn out to be supported by subsequently detailed illustration, a crucial problem remains that is the second research can explain the first research? It is reasonable to cast doubts upon presumption which made by the author because presumption actually is inadequate in that the second might not explain the whole first research, or the library's study only is a part of the study in the first part. Just like the previous discussions above, the author does not provide any information about the association between the two studies, only indicating the difference in reading frequency. Pursuing this reasoning proves that the author has the responsibility to carefully consider his assumptions and then provide cogent evidence to pave the way for a more reliable argument.
In hindsight, it seems precipitous for the writer to make the summary based on a sequence of problematic premises. To eliminate the implausibility of conclusion, the author must offer the more specific evidence mentioned on the above.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 454 350
No. of Characters: 2285 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.616 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.033 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.863 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.895 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.12 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.539 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, therefore, well, as to, in addition, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2341.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 454.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1563876652 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95350795848 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504405286344 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 720.9 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.0840132037 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.210526316 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8947368421 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21052631579 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.213612957706 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0561977449608 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535199087437 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.099271569342 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0708738193293 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.