After comparing the results of two studies of the Waymarsh citizens’ reading preferences, the author concludes that the first study respondents mispresented their favorite genre of literature. He supports his conclusion with the fact that literary classics as a preferred genre (as revealed by the first study) did not match mystery novels (as revealed by the second study conducted in the public libraries). Even though such a conclusion seems persuasive at first, after its evaluation with scrutiny some unstated assumptions appear which unless proved renders the argument untenable.
Firstly, the author assumes that the research sample was representative, meaning that the obtained results can be trusted. In other words, it is falsely assumed that respondents were from different age groups, professions, etc. It is entirely possible that the participants were mostly students since this study was conducted by the University of Waymarsh. Unless the sample consists of different people taking into account their gender, age, occupation, level of education and so on, the results cannot be considered valid. Therefore, if this assumption turns out to be wrong, then it will mean that the data in the study was skewed and, as a result, it does not represent well Waymarsh citizens’ reading preferences. Hence, it might not be the fault of the first study respondents who supposedly mispresented their preferences, but rather it might be the researches who did not manage to allocate a sample that would be representative.
Secondly, it is assumed that both studies were conducted at the same time or relatively close to each other so that their results can be compared. However, since we are not provided with the dates of those studies, it might be the case that there is one or ten years difference between them. Of course, even if the former two assumptions were correct the respondents’ preferences might have changed during this time. Perhaps, some bestselling mystery novel appeared or a movie based on such a book was released drawing more attention to this genre. As banal as that, the participants of the study might have got tired of reading the same genre and wanted to discover something new. Consequently, the argument can be easily dismissed if there is a significant time period between the two studies.
In the final analysis, the author’s conclusion about the misrepresentation of the reading preferences by the first study respondents is unconvincing as it stands since it relies on the above-mentioned assumptions. Even if one of them turns out to be false, then the cogency of the argument will be seriously damaged. Therefore, only if all of the assumptions prove to be valid, the conclusion can be considered tenable.
Essay evaluation report
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: 17 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2246 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.88 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.444 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.882 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 342, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...e seriously damaged. Therefore, only if all of the assumptions prove to be valid, the conc...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, well, of course, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2326.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26244343891 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08240129837 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506787330317 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 726.3 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.073389465 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.222222222 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5555555556 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.66666666667 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240032076735 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0774459198687 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0838059184321 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149915822146 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0605535933111 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.