Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the prediction and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the prediction.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that in order to be commitment to recycling in the town, more space in landfill for garbage is needed. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored question need to be addressed.
To commence with, the author contends that two years ago city council anticipated that landfill will completely filled during five years. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since, a question that might arise is whether wasting materials by people will increased day in day out. One point that should be considered is that the author does not offer any information about garbage that people produced during past years. Indeed, there is possibility that people make less unwanted materials and produce less garbage during five years owing to the fact that many materials are able to recycle in a short period of time. In such case, that prediction could not comes true after five years. It is also important to say that maybe other landfill replace with filled one because the author does not mention how many landfills are use in the city?
The author also asserts that the recycled materials should increase such as paper, plastic and so forth, and also the amount of money for picking up garbage will not diminish. Although it might seems tenable at face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question if people will pay more for picking up unwanted materials. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that people should be encouraged to use recycled materials. Indeed, if the amount of money for picking garbage become doubled, not only will not people pay more money but also will not use recycled materials. Alongside that, the author does not show to the extent people recycling materials and protect environment and try not to filled landfill.
Finally, as set forth by the author in a recent survey more that 90 percent of people alleged that they do more recycling in future. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if people respond to that survey accurately. One point that should not go unnoticed is that there is possibility that people did not tell the truth and wanted to pretend in a way that they do recycling in order to pay less money for picking up garbage or even do not pay. In such case, that survey could not be accurate and reliable.
Having scrutinized the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a number of question, having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
- TPO 4080
- The effectiveness of a country's leaders is best measured by examining the well-being of that country's citizens.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position66
- The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine."A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep t66
- In general, people are living longer now. Discuss the cause of this phenomenon.86
- What discovery in the past 100 years has been most beneficial for people in your country?83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'fill'
...ticipated that landfill will completely filled during five years. However, it does not...
Line 3, column 269, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'increase'
...hether wasting materials by people will increased day in day out. One point that should b...
Line 3, column 617, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME
Message: Use simply 'period'.
...aterials are able to recycle in a short period of time. In such case, that prediction could no...
Line 3, column 673, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'come'
...In such case, that prediction could not comes true after five years. It is also impor...
Line 7, column 123, Rule ID: IN_PAST
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ple alleged that they do more recycling in future. Nevertheless, the rationale behind thi...
Line 9, column 213, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...could add to the logic of each premise.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 13.6137724551 198% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2234.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 464.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81465517241 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64119157421 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.41791519951 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452586206897 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 696.6 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.0467285852 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.578947368 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4210526316 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.68421052632 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => 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: 0.131291537999 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0492979298453 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544391990146 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0990424050771 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0630847051428 0.0628817314937 100% => OK
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.72 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.