"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 author claims that by using serverely substandard housing near the freeway in one side of the Transpolis city the crime rate declined and property taxes increased. The author now proposes to undertake similar actions in the opposite side of the city. To bolster his proposal he puts the forward evidences from the other side of city where using substandard housing for industry contributed to development of that area. However, in the evidences provided by the author there are several assumptions, flaws, illogical rationale he uses to support the argument. To support the argument the author needs to go through the below discussions.
Firstly, the author is assuming that the two parts of the city are rough comparable and is drawing generalizations to compare one part of the city with the other. However, it is possible that these two parts of the city are not comparable. For instance, the part of city where substandard housing was used for industry might have more poor people who were doing some crimes to survive. With the construction of factories lot of people might be employed in that and the crime rate might have decreased. But where as on the other part of city it might be possible that many of them might be software engineers who earns proper income and as a result crime rate is less. As this part has mostly software engineers the newly constructed factories may not be able to find new workers which will incur losses to industry and which in turn will the fail the entire plan.
Secondly, crime rate might have been decreased for some other reasons. Increase in number of factories may not be sole reason for the decrease of crime rate in that area. For instance, at the same time this factories being constructed government might have taken stringent action to reduce the crime rate in that particular because of which the crime rate decreased.
Thirdly, increase in property tax of overall city doesn't essentially mean that property tax from this area contributed to overall increase. For instance it is possible that far from this area in the middle of city there was rapid development because of which more houses were constructed at that place and because of which overall property tax collected in city might have increased. Thus this kind of flaw evidence will weaken the argument further.
Finally, these developments of one part of city were done ten years ago. The author here also assumes that there are similar circumstances even after ten years and the same plan of using sub standard housing for factory contribute to development. However, it is possible that the same plan might not hold true now as many things have changed and now may be people are willing to do more white collar jobs than the factory jobs because of which there is no work force factory. Constructing new factories may not be feasible option and it may not contribute to development. On the other hand it may incur lot of losses to those factories.
In a final summary, the argument is weak and unconvincing. The assumptions here needs to supported with credible and flawless evidences to validate the author's recommendation. However, the report here fails to provide credible evidences and as result the author's suggesstion that substandard housing on the other part of city should be used for industry is dubious and as of now the authenticity of the entire argument falls flat.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 507, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...he crime rate might have decreased. But where as on the other part of city it might be p...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 51, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ncrease in property tax of overall city doesnt essentially mean that property tax from...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 385, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...collected in city might have increased. Thus this kind of flaw evidence will weaken ...
^^^^
Line 14, column 153, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... and flawless evidences to validate the authors recommendation. However, the report her...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for instance, kind of, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2840.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 576.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93055555556 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63866729698 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404513888889 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 906.3 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9275409456 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.6 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.04 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.12 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.303745261639 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.08904384712 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07063748384 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156936748392 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437972337494 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 507, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...he crime rate might have decreased. But where as on the other part of city it might be p...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 51, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ncrease in property tax of overall city doesnt essentially mean that property tax from...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 385, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...collected in city might have increased. Thus this kind of flaw evidence will weaken ...
^^^^
Line 14, column 153, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... and flawless evidences to validate the authors recommendation. However, the report her...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, for instance, kind of, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2840.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 576.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93055555556 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89897948557 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63866729698 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.404513888889 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 906.3 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9275409456 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.6 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.04 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.12 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.303745261639 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.08904384712 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.07063748384 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156936748392 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0437972337494 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.