As violence in movies increases, so do crime rates in our cities. To combat this problem we must establish a board
to censor certain movies, or we must limit admission to persons over 21 years of age. Apparently our legislators are
not concerned about this issue since a bill calling for such actions recently failed to receive a majority vote.
The argument claims that crime rates in our cities increases as violence portrayed in the movies increases so, we must establish a board to censor certain violent movies or we must limit people under 21 years of age from watching such violent movies since our legislators are not concerned about crime rates since a bill calling for such action recently failed to receive a majority vote. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvincing and has several flaws
First, the argument readily assumes that because of increased violence shown in movies, crime rates in our cities has increased. The statement is stretch and not substantiated in any way. There can be other numerous reasons that may have increased crime rates in cities such as poverty or unemployment. For example there may be illegal drugs business conducted by some criminal in an organized way and may be expanding their business in cities. These factors could increase crime rates in cities. These factors are not explicity mentioned in the argument. The argument would be more clearer if it explicity shown the correlation for violence in movies that could have caused the rise in crime rates in cities.
Second, the argument claims that if we censor violent movies or if we limit admission to person over 21 years of age to watch these movies, then crime rates in our cities will be reduced. This is again very weak and unsupported claim since the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the rise in crime rates in cities and juveniles who watch the violent movies. The argument does not demonstrate how these juveniles watching these movies leads to increase in crimes rates in our cities.
Finally, the argument concludes that our legislators are not concerned about increased crime rates since a bill calling for such action recently failed to receive a majority vote. From this statement, it is clear that legislators nust have understood the above mentioned facts that weaken this argument resulting into the failure to pass the bill to censor violent movies or limiting under 21 years of age people from watching these violent movies.
In summary, the argument is flawed for above mentioned reason and therefore unconvincing. The Argument would be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess all the merits of the situation, it is essential to have the full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 439 350
No. of Characters: 2179 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.577 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.964 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.554 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.649 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.575 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 597, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak, unconvinci...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'clearer' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: clearer
... in the argument. The argument would be more clearer if it explicity shown the correlation f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, for example, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2228.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07517084282 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60829893081 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.416856492027 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 699.3 705.55239521 99% => 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: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.4974503085 57.8364921388 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.777777778 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3888888889 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.311178686533 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934859419141 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113130654527 0.0701772020484 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185857481748 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113671112436 0.0628817314937 181% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
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.