"On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island's moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals."
With the information provide about, the assumptions leading to conclusion remains unfounded. This arguments is well presented yet far-fetched. The author of the assumptions claims that moped is a remarkable transportation in Balmer Island, which this moped is a sole reason for accident in the city. Hence the conclusion is ill- founded.
The primary assumptions underlying makes the author that to diminishing a considerable number of accident involving mopeds, we should restrict the number of moped during the vacation of summer season. Nevertheless, he fails to preclude other possibility that might lead to this event. As a matter of fact, there are other factors for accident such as: climate factor, geographical character, adverse storm, lack of sign light in the road, devoid of infrastructure in the city, heavy traffic. Want of such prudent answers makes the author assumptions full of holes. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about other reason for accident that is responsible for this event.
Furthermore, the author avers that by limiting the number of rental, the town will obtain 50 percent reduction in accidents that exert in neighboring island. However, he fails to take other possible reason into account. In fact, provided this law works in Seaville does not work in Balmer Island due to situation of two cities might be dissent each other. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about detail of two cities which is greatly imperative for comparison without any doubt.
Moreover, the author of the assumptions assumes that number of moped which is highly absurd. As we know, accident is corresponds to who drive the vehicle not the number of vehicle. Without considering and ruling other possible reason into account. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about driver and allocating a tremendous of time for educating drive for youth which is highly indispensable criteria.
Is short, as discussed, the conclusion cannot be tenable. The author of the assumptions should have provided information about other factor for accident such as climate factor and road situation. Besides, city should have other solutions for this accident such as separating path for moped and pedestrian. On the other hand, to make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observations method. After all, feckless attempts with a fallible method could not be a fool's errand.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 94, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...eading to conclusion remains unfounded. This arguments is well presented yet far-fet...
^^^^
Line 1, column 109, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[4]
Message: You should probably use: 'are'.
Suggestion: are
...usion remains unfounded. This arguments is well presented yet far-fetched. The aut...
^^
Line 1, column 301, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...a sole reason for accident in the city. Hence the conclusion is ill- founded. The pr...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 367, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'observations'' or 'observation's'?
Suggestion: observations'; observation's
... make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observations method. After all, feckless attempts wi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fools'' or 'fool's'?
Suggestion: fools'; fool's
...s with a fallible method could not be a fools errand.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, after all, in fact, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
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 : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2072.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 390.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31282051282 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44391917772 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82290807385 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.489743589744 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 630.9 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
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: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.1211186509 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.1818181818 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.7272727273 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.31818181818 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15396615937 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0472583679376 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0658018097206 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0993594619425 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0289559025791 0.0628817314937 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.