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.
The given argument concludes that the respondents of the study related to the reading habits of people of Waymarsh have misrepresented their reading preferences. The argument is backed by the result of the second study conducted by the same researchers that mystery novels are the most borrowed book from the Waymarsh public libraries. However, the argument is relying on many unwarranted assumptions which makes it undependable as it stands.
Firstly, the arguer has not stated the cross-section of the people who participated in the first study and those who borrow books from the public library. Unless the arguer provides data related to the respondents, it is difficult to assume that the result of the first study is misrepresented. Moreover, arguer hasn't provided any data about the age group the first study targeted and the average age of people borrowing books from the library. It might be possible that disproportionate participants of the first study belonged to an older age group and people who usually borrow books from the library are college students, thus explaining the difference in choice. Without sufficient data, it is not possible to agree with the arguer.
Furthermore, the arguer has made fallacies assumption that public library is the only source of books available to the citizen of Waymarsh. It might be possible that the city of Waymarsh has numerous private libraries or popular bookstores from where people can buy books. Most of the people who are borrowing books from the libraries are younger students, who don't have the resources to buy a book. If the above is true it will weaken the arguer's assumption.
Finally, the arguer hasn't provided any evidence to show how many literary books are being borrowed from the library. Although mystery novels are the most checked out, literary books might be close second and the first study had a disproportionate amount people who like literary classics thus bending the result of the first survey towards them. Moreover, the arguer hasn't provided any report to show how many classic literary books are available in the library. It is possible that the library doesn't have enough books or enough variety and people have no other choice but to borrow mystery books. Without considering these conditions a concluding argument cannot be made.
Concluding, without sufficient evidence and established a link between the people of the first study to that of the second. It is difficult to assume that respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading preferences. Hence, the argument as it stands is flawed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not really
----------------
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2138 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.019 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.739 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.3 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.511 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 313, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...udy is misrepresented. Moreover, arguer hasnt provided any data about the age group t...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...the libraries are younger students, who dont have the resources to buy a book. If th...
^^^^
Line 5, column 401, 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.
... dont have the resources to buy a book. If the above is true it will weaken the ar...
^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguers'' or 'arguer's'?
Suggestion: arguers'; arguer's
...If the above is true it will weaken the arguers assumption. Finally, the arguer hasn...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 21, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...uers assumption. Finally, the arguer hasnt provided any evidence to show how many ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...rvey towards them. Moreover, the arguer hasnt provided any report to show how many cl...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 496, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ibrary. It is possible that the library doesnt have enough books or enough variety and...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, second, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2186.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19239904988 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79079091734 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.413301662708 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 681.3 705.55239521 97% => 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: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.3642912164 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.3 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.05 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18943424437 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0658710606031 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.079064787844 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137341743828 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104651930876 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.75 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.