There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity than does the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave taken by individual workers than do businesses in the nearby large city of Masonton. Furthermore, Leeville has only one physician for its one thousand residents, but in Masonton the proportion of physicians to residents is five times as high. Finally, the average age of Leeville residents is significantly higher than that of Masonton residents. These findings suggest that the relaxed pace of life in Leeville allows residents to live longer, healthier lives.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
This argument states, that the relaxed pace of life leads to a better health and extends the expected lifetime of dwellers in small towns. Unlike the stressful pace in metropolis, which has a negative impact on people living there. The argument depends on the number of days of sick leave in a small city “Leeville” and a larger city “Masonton”, the number of physicians in both cities and a comparison between the average age of citizens of each city. Before this explanation can be evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First of all, what is the location of these two cities? As it is possible, that Leeville is by a river and all of its citizens have a natural water access, unlike Masonton, which is more probably vulnerable to processed water, especially if it is located by the sea. Another important fact is, the quality of food this city, it is more common small towns to be rural, thus, organic food would be available to its dwellers, unlike big cities, where this kind of food is scarce. If one of these two examples – by any chance – have such a possibility, it would affect the public health of both towns and thus, the dependability of the first evidence.
Secondly, is there any deficit in physicians in Leeville? In other words, is there an abundant number of physicians in Masonton? Despite having only one physician for every 1000 people in Leeville, perhaps this only physician is working 24/7 examining people because of the lack of the number of doctors in Leeville. Moreover, practitioners’ number is higher in Masonton, yet they could not have much pressure as Leeville. So, the occupation of doctors in both cities should be put in consideration. Consequently, it could be possible that physicians in Masonton and Leeville have the same number of patients, if this investigation comes to be true, this would weaken the second evidence of the argument.
Finally, what are the demographics of Leeville and Manson? In Japan for example, the government is introducing some nutrition habits to its people and as a result, within decades the average height of its citizens increased by 10 cm. This could be possible in Leeville, as it is small town, people living there would be - more likely- indigenous, this means that, they have their habits for so long and they have always this long age symptoms. On the contrary, Manson city is larger and susceptible to people from different background, which will affect certainly the average lifetime of people living there. Therefore, the third evidence of the argument has a flaw regarding the population of both cities.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions as evidences. If the author can just answer these three questions, the evaluation of the argument will be more effective.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2282 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.784 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.649 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.714 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.498 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, finally, first, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, kind of, as a result, first of all, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2402.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02510460251 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97822549541 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487447698745 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 759.6 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.1124068533 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.380952381 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7619047619 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61904761905 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.121601904295 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0359771920077 0.0743258471296 48% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0533829617245 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0675400140317 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0610512463833 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.