"Two years ago, the town of Seaside Vista opened a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. Since then, the Seaside Vista Tourism Board has reported a 20% increase in visitors. In addition, local banks reported a steep rise in the number of new business loan applications they received this year. The amount of tax money collected by Seaside Vista has also increased, allowing the town to announce plans to improve Seaside Vista's roads and bridges. We recommend building a similar golf course and resort hotel in Brindleburg. We predict that this project will generate additional tax revenue that the city can use to fund much-needed public improvements."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In this memo, the Mayor of Brindleburg makes the argument that a new municipal golf course and resort hotel would create additional tax revenue, which could be used to improve the cities roads, bridges, and other government funded areas. This claim is based on the fact that a similar plan was carried out in Seaside Vista, and was successful. However, the Mayor of Brindleberg fails to answer many vital questions surrounding his argument, rendering his proof incomplete.
First off, the question of Seaside Vista in relation to the city of Brindleburg must be addressed. This argument provides no context regarding the similarity of the two cities. Perhaps the Mayor thought this information was superfluous at best, but in reality, this information is what the argument hinges on. For all we know, Seaside Vista may be a west coast tourist town, while Brindleburg may be a Midwestern agricultural community. A gold course vacation town would certainly thrive in a wealthy vacation town, but the socio-economics differ city to city. We don’t even have any proof that the cities are located in the same country! Comparing these locations is problematic without further information about the two cities and their populations. If this question was answered, we would be better able to judge whether Seaside Vista’s increased tourism can be applied to Brindleburg.
Another question that is left unanswered is in regards to the extraneous events occurring in these two cities, and how those events may have affected the 20% increase in visitors. The Mayor makes an assumption that the increase in visitors is directly correlated with the new golf course, failing to look at other details that could have affected this growth. Other new tourist attractions aside from the golf course could be responsible. For example, if Seaside Vista recently opened a public beach, this could be what is drawing in tourists. Without knowledge of other possible draws to the city, the assumption that the golf course is the sole cause is unreliable. If the Mayor were able to answer this question and provide a compilation of other possible attractions and their respective attendance, the argument in favor of a golf course would be strengthened.
Lastly, the assumption is made that the increase in tax money in Seaside Vista is a direct result of the successful new golf course. However, a sharp increase in taxes could be frustrating to the inhabitants of Brindleburg, causing them to move away in favor of a town with lower taxation. A waning population would be detrimental to the success of both the golf course and the city itself. By choosing not to address the issue of taxation’s effect on the community, the Mayor is leaving out an important part of this argument. The heightened taxation could have lasting negative effects that outweigh the positives that a golf course would provide.
Though a new municipal golf course may seem like a favorable idea, the proof backing up this claim is superficial at best. The argument scratches the surface level but never answers any deeper questions regarding the differences between Seaside Villa and Brindleburg. Unless these questions are addressed, the claim will remain full of holes and lacking in reliability.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. 'The amount of tax money collected by Seaside Vista has also increased' is not equal to 'a sharp increase in taxes ' .
----------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
Two years ago, the town of Seaside Vista opened a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. Since then, the Seaside Vista Tourism Board has reported a 20% increase in visitors. In addition, local banks reported a steep rise in the number of new business loan applications they received this year. The amount of tax money collected by Seaside Vista has also increased, allowing the town to announce plans to improve Seaside Vista's roads and bridges.
we may argue:
maybe other factors have caused a 20% increase in visitors, new business loan applications and increased tax money.
condition 2:
We recommend building a similar golf course and resort hotel in Brindleburg.
we may argue:
need to compare the similarity and differences between A and B.
conclusion:
We predict that this project will generate additional tax revenue that the city can use to fund much-needed public improvements.
we may argue:
suppose It works for A, doesn't mean it works for B. or Maybe it worked two years ago, not for now.
-----------------
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2663 1500
No. of Different Words: 248 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.996 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.717 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.32 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.208 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.482 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 45, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...her question that is left unanswered is in regards to the extraneous events occurring in thes...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, look, may, regarding, so, then, while, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2749.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 532.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16729323308 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80261649409 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8461570305 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486842105263 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 837.9 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.372602169 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.541666667 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1666666667 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45833333333 5.70786347227 61% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.21314752077 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0671433022335 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0481495410573 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.129485475172 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0230943013161 0.0628817314937 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
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: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 98.500998004 138% => 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.