"Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard housing near the freeway. Subsequently, several factories were constructed there, crime rates in the area declined, and property tax revenues for the entire city increased. To further revitalize the city, we should now take similar action in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. Since some houses and apartments in existing nearby neighborhoods are currently unoccupied, alternate housing for those displaced by this action will be readily available."
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.
The argument recommends taking similar action as the city of Transopolis in a declining residential area on the opposite side of the city. The argument needs specific evidence to evaluate it and that evidence helps us in deciding whether to follow the recommendation or not.
Firstly, there is no proper evidence that the initiative taken as part of urban renewal program ten years ago will yield the same results after ten years. There will be many changes that will have occurred in these ten years. For instance, the crime rate in the area ten years ago was very high compared to today and the factories constructed in that area might decreased the crime rates. Are the crime rates ten years ago and now same? Is there any evidence that the crime rates will decline and property tax revenues will increase if several factories are constructed on the opposite side of the city in the similar way it happened ten years ago? The answers to these questions helps in strengthening or undermining the argument.
Secondly, there is no proper evidence that what is apt for Transopolis city is also apt for the opposite side of the city. Are both sides of the cities similar in all aspects? If they are different in few aspects like the crime rate is very low in the opposite side of the city, then there would no use of constructing several factories in the opposite side of the city.
Thirdly, the argument assumes that alternate housing for those displaced will be readily available if several factories are constructed in the opposite side of the city. If the assumption is not valid, then its undermines the validity of the argument. For instance, if the housing is not readily available for many people who are displaced, there will be discrepancies among the people which may lead to increase in the crime rate in the opposite side of the city.
In order to evaluate the argument, the above specific evidences are to be considered. These evidences helps in strengthening or weakening the argument which helps in deciding whether to follow the recommendation or not.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 355 350
No. of Characters: 1683 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.341 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.741 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.636 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 102 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 34 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.188 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.349 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.381 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.619 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 724, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...trengthening or undermining the argument Secondly there is no proper evidence tha...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1699.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 355.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78591549296 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34067318298 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63570165791 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 132.0 204.123752495 65% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.371830985915 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 1.0 19.7664670659 5% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 355.0 22.8473053892 1554% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 0.0 57.8364921388 0% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 1699.0 119.503703932 1422% => Less chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 355.0 23.324526521 1522% => Less words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 87.0 5.70786347227 1524% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.20758483034 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.31356802091 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.31356802091 0.0743258471296 422% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152175206664 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116674535841 0.0628817314937 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 178.6 14.3799401198 1242% => Automated_readability_index is high.
flesch_reading_ease: -288.85 48.3550499002 -597% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 0.0 7.1628742515 0% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 141.7 12.197005988 1162% => Flesch kincaid grade is high.
coleman_liau_index: 11.98 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 23.82 8.32208582834 286% => Dale chall readability score is high.
difficult_words: 58.0 98.500998004 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 55.0 12.3882235529 444% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 144.0 11.1389221557 1293% => Gunning_fog is high.
text_standard: 24.0 11.9071856287 202% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.