Workers in the small town of Leeville take fewer sick days than workers in the large city of Masonton, 50 miles away. Moreover, relative to population size, the diagnosis of stress-related illness is proportionally much lower in Leeville than in Masonton. According to the Leeville Chamber of Commerce, these facts can be attributed to the health benefits of the relatively relaxed pace of life in Leeville.
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.
The explanation that the referred facts in the argument can be ascribed to the health advantages of the rather relaxed celerity of life in Leeville, as opposed to Masonton, is not complete. There are gaps in the logic of the argument that render it unconvincing. The following essay will expose these flaws and demonstrate how the argument could be made more cogent.
To begin with, the argument unfairly presumes that less sick days taken by Leeville's workers compared to Masonton's is the valid indicator of the health benefits of living in Leeville, yet it does nothing to explain how it could be the case. First, the author has not presented any kind of reliable evidence or statistics with the aim of backing up his/her claim. Perhaps according to the official figures a great deal of Leeville's workers in fact take more sick days than Mosonton's workers. Further, even admitting that Leeville's workers take fewer sick days, it is still entirely possible these fewer workers suffer from much more serious medical conditions than the larger number of Masonton's workers taking sick days. Since the author fails to consider and rule out such possibilities, the argument remains dubious. If the writer had proved his claim through presenting some official figures, and if he/she had given more details regarding the severity of the medical conditions of those taking sick days in both cities, the argument could have been strengthened.
Moreover, what is the base for the writer's second claim regarding the diagnosis of stress-related malady? Again the author has pointed out to a fact without supplying it with some scientific results or survey outputs, with the result that this way the argument would be open to serious reservations. Perhaps the majority of the Leeville's general populace did not go under careful examination with regard to determining the proportionality of stress-linked illnesses hence, resulting in the specious data that Masonton suffers more from such diseases in relation to its population. Such considerations cast grave doubts on the validity of the argument. The writer could reinforce their case by first, presenting highly validated results confirming his/her claim regarding the frequency of stress-related illnesses in the two cities, and then through giving information about the fractions of the two cities' general populations examined for determining the stress-related illness cases in the two cities.
To summarize, the argument is not wholly sensible. The evidence in support of the deduction that the mentioned facts in the argument can be attributed to the wellness benefits of the rather relaxed pace of life in Leeville, compared to Masonton, does little to substantiate that inferrence, since it does not address the suppositions already brought up.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2317 1500
No. of Different Words: 227 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.183 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.815 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 57 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.754 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.534 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e suppositions already brought up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, moreover, regarding, second, so, still, then, well, in fact, kind of, to begin with, with regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2379.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 444.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35810810811 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85721523193 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.522522522523 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 728.1 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.8721096545 57.8364921388 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.6875 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.75 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.625 5.70786347227 134% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.251474430284 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0717240184736 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0901740361079 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117528651256 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0989571016259 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.7 14.3799401198 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.14 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.