Tria Island’s tourism bureau
In this argument, the author of this letter concludes that Tria Island’s tourism bureau should charge money for the using of beaches, to raise money for replenishing the sand. Therefore, this can protect the condition of beaches and the buildings along the shores and finally benefit the total tourist industry in a long term. It seems persuasive at the first glance. However, with some implicit holes and lacks of specific evidences, this argument may not be strong enough to lead to the previous conclusion.
First, the author failed to provide the total amount of people who are using the beach now, and only assumes that the money charged from these people is enough to buy sand to replenish the beaches. This evidence is essential, since if the number of tourists is far less than the author’s assumption, government would not raise enough money. So, if the author still can’t calculate the exact number of the average number of tourists and the amount of money they can raise, this argument may be considerably weakened.
Second, the author rarely provide evidence concerning whether the number of tourists will decline after they are charged while using the beaches. Since this regulation has a potential risk, that it might significantly reduce the existing tourists number on the beach, leading to less money from tourists than before. And also these tourists may be annoyed and never come back again. If this is the case, this conclusion not only means that the government cannot get enough money, but also bring a bad effect on the long-term development of the local tourism. So, this reason cannot convince me either.
Finally, the author assumes that replenishing the sand will be helpful to protect the buildings near the beaches, since a nearby island of Batia had done the same thing before to protect buildings. But there is a lack of decisive evidence that whether the Batia’s protection program has proved to be successful. Perhaps the building condition isn’t better than before. Even if the the building condition in Batia is better now, how could the author assumes that this is all attributed to the replenishing of sand? Maybe replenishing the beaches cannot be benefit to the protection of these buildings. If the author cannot provide more evidence to answer this questions clearly, this argument cannot be strengthened.
To sum up, as I pointed out before, this conclusion is based on certain doubtful assumptions and lacks of several specific evidences. To bolster the argument, the author ought to provide more evidence regarding the existing number of tourists and the trends of variation, as well as more decisive evidences which can prove the success of Batia Island’s protection project.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 449 350
No. of Characters: 2224 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.603 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.953 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.492 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 173 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 77 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.08 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.314 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 13, column 388, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... isn't better than before. Even if the the building condition in Batia is better n...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 388, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... isn't better than before. Even if the the building condition in Batia is better n...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, still, then, therefore, well, while, as well as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 448.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18526785714 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67061970751 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46875 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 703.8 705.55239521 100% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7924483548 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.15 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.125245475475 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387422963693 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0712598732328 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0787785666427 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0549483024039 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => 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.