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.
The following is a letter that recently appeared in the Oak City Gazette, a local newspaper.
"The primary function of the Committee for a Better Oak City is to advise the city government on how to make the best use of the city's limited budget. However, at some of our recent meetings we failed to make important decisions because of the foolish objections raised by committee members who are not even residents of Oak City. People who work in Oak City but who live elsewhere cannot fully understand the business and politics of the city. After all, only Oak City residents pay city taxes, and therefore only residents understand how that money could best be used to improve the city. We recommend, then, that the Committee for a Better Oak City vote to restrict its membership to city residents only. We predict that, without the interference of non-residents, the committee will be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work."
In this argument, the arguer asserts that the Committee for a Better Oak City should restrict its membership to city residents so that the Committee would be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work. In support of this recommendation, the arguer points out several pieces of evidence. However, a careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.
Firstly, we are not informed whether people working in Oak City but living elsewhere do not understand how to use the money to improve the city. Chances are that Oak City is a place where most individuals come from other places to work owing to a higher payment. Though those people do not dwell here, they may play important roles in financial or political department of the government or the local large companies. In this case, they exactly know the financial condition of the city and the political implementation, which means they are able to come up with valuable and plausible suggestions aiming at resolving the difficulty the city is faced with. If the Committee prevent them from voting for the important decision about the city development, it is possible for it to bring negative influence on Oak City, let alone city improvement. Without ruling out such a possibility, the author cannot convince us that the conclusion is cogent.
Secondly, without answering the question if Oak City dwellers who pay city taxes understand how money could be best used to improve the city. To some degree, it might well happen that these taxpayers pay taxes only out of responsibility, less understanding the money management of a city. Thus, paying taxes might be the only way for them to make contributions on city development. Therefore, the Committee really need expert participation to make wiser decisions. As they have more fundamental knowledge and practical experience, they probably offer professional advice of more values that the common taxpayers. Without taking into consideration such possibilities,the author fails to substantiate his claim that only residents understand the method of using the city’s limited budget.
Last but not least, even though the objection from some committee members but not dwellers made barriers to passing the decision, one question that needs to be answered that if there are some other reasons for the failure of the decision. Expelling those opponents from the committee can reduce the disagreement and lower the resistance against making some important decisions, however this fails to promise the improvement of Oak City, if there are other reasons still exist, such as the objection from local residents and the limitation from the nature condition. As a result, this scenario, if true, the author fails to substantiate his assertion.
To sum up, this arguer fails to convince us that if the Committee for a Better Oak City restrict its membership to city residents, the Committee would be able to make Oak City a better place in which to live and work, without answering the questions above.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 500 350
No. of Characters: 2493 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.729 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.986 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.759 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 77 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.68 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.684 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 666, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , the
...ng into consideration such possibilities,the author fails to substantiate his claim ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, thus, well, such as, as a result, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2559.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 499.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12825651303 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72634191566 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88489604845 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482965931864 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 804.6 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.6279130688 57.8364921388 117% => OK
Chars per sentence: 134.684210526 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2631578947 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.84210526316 5.70786347227 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.113133309723 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380994127991 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447914572641 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0777097487243 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0343808999406 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.