The following recommendation appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of Hopewell.
"Two years ago, the nearby town of Ocean View built a new municipal golf course and resort hotel. During the past two years, tourism in Ocean View has increased, new businesses have opened there, and Ocean View's tax revenues have risen by 30 percent. Therefore, the best way to improve Hopewell's economy — and generate additional tax revenues — is to build a golf course and resort hotel similar to those in Ocean View."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In this memo, the mayor of Hopewell states that the best way to strengthen Hopewell’s economy is to build a golf course and a resort complex. The mayor himself came to this conclusion based on evidence that a neighboring city did exactly this and its economy is prospering. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, we must analyze the following three aspects.
First of all, are Ocean View -and Hopewell roughly comparable? In other words, do these two towns share the same characteristics and problems? Perhaps Ocean View appeals to a wider range of people for its already well known attractions and, before the new resort was built, the other hotels were completely full, whereas that may not be the case for Hopewell. Further, Ocean View may be a centre of attraction for wealthy populace, where a resort is welcome by tourists, which may not be the case for Hopewell. If either of these scenarios has merit, then conclusions made by the mayor may be seriously weakened.
Secondly, even if these two towns are comparable, is the sharp rise of government revenue due mainly to the increase in tourism and its spillover effects? It is possible that these new complexes play a minor role in this revenue increase. For example, Ocean View may be completely renewing their economic strategy and promoting not only tourist attractions but also the creation of new tech companies that generate high amounts of revenue. It may as well be the case that this increase in tax revenue may be heavily attributed to these new companies, and the resort and golf club only account for one or two per cent of the increase. If the above is true, then the conclusion may not hold water.
Lastly, is the market already saturated with golf courses and resorts? In other words, is the existence of two golf courses and two resorts in two neighboring cities too many? It may be the case that the existence of two equal services in such a small area may lead consumers to split up between them, hence the growth in tax revenue and tourism might not be as big as expected. Worse, it can even happen that the quality of Ocean View’s services is much better than that of Hopewell and no tourists are attracted to the latter, making this investment a pure waste of money. If this comes out as truthful, conclusions by the mayor may become undermined.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its unwarranted assumptions. Only if the mayor is capable of giving some answers to these questions and offer evidence to support them are we apt to evaluate the viability of the recommendation to build a new resort and a golf course.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, whereas, for example, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 58.6224719101 85% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2220.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 462.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80519480519 5.05705443957 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63618218583 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71803992738 2.79657885939 97% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 215.323595506 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495670995671 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 704.065955056 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.04080976 60.3974514979 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.0 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.5 5.21951772744 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254045553559 0.243740707755 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0781192602442 0.0831039109588 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0533831377988 0.0758088955206 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.139137349626 0.150359130593 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0514380498593 0.0667264976115 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.8420337079 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.1639044944 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.37 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.