Blue City Highway had always been notorious for its tight curves and poor roadway visibility, and the accident rate there was generally very high. Last year the highway was redesigned to broaden the curves and improve roadway visibility. Drivers report that they now feel much safer driving on the highway and that the redesign has been a big improvement. But the number of accidents on the highway has not been significantly lower in the six months since the redesign than it was in the six months before the redesign. Therefore, the redesign clearly did not improve the curves and roadway visibility enough to make a difference.
Argument given in the passage advocates about reducing the road accident on blue city highway by broadening the curves and improving the visibility because as given in the passage it states that there used to be more number of accidents due to this factors however, there seems to be no difference in the pattern of accident and proposal was not very helpful. Author concluded that broadening and improving the visibility did not help at all however, assumptions given in the argument seems fallacious and came to nonconstructive conclusion without investigating any further on the issue. Argument flawed in number of factors.
First of all, there is no substantial proof given in the passage about the number of accidents occurred before redesign and after redesign and therefore cannot jump to some abrupt conclusion that after implementation of suggestion, it did not work out. There is a possibility that people would had avoided taking the Blue city highway as it was already known for it mishaps even though there was significant change as stated by the drivers who drove on Blue highway after the redesign. Therefore, number of accident would have decreased but as there was less number of people of travelling the same route, it seems as if there was no significant change.
Secondly, arguer did not consider the data after six month of redesign. There is a high probability that accidents must have decreased and therefore improvements does help in eliminating the road hazards.
Thirdly, arguer did not consider other factors of accidents like drunk driving, poor road conditions, potholes, rash driving. Road maintenance association should also consider these factors and should work on it to prevent accidents. These factors are not considered in the passage which is also important.
It is evident that there could be other factors and reasons which would cause accident and even if broadening the road would have helped, but these factors were not taken care of which could have helped more and therefore, it is wrong to say that former did not proved to be useful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 245, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...d to be more number of accidents due to this factors however, there seems to be no d...
^^^^
Line 5, column 54, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'month' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'months'.
Suggestion: months
...uer did not consider the data after six month of redesign. There is a high probabilit...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 120, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had helped'?
Suggestion: had helped
...ccident and even if broadening the road would have helped, but these factors were not taken care ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 263, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'prove'
Suggestion: prove
... it is wrong to say that former did not proved to be useful.
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 284, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hat former did not proved to be useful.
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'third', 'thirdly', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.228260869565 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.201086956522 0.15541462614 129% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0625 0.0836205057962 75% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0679347826087 0.0520304965353 131% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0217391304348 0.0272364105082 80% => OK
Prepositions: 0.14402173913 0.125424944231 115% => OK
Participles: 0.0652173913043 0.0416121511921 157% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.72862012847 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0217391304348 0.026700313972 81% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0842391304348 0.113004496875 75% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0271739130435 0.0255425247493 106% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0108695652174 0.0127820249294 85% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2092.0 2731.13054187 77% => OK
No of words: 342.0 446.07635468 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.11695906433 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30037696126 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.359649122807 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.280701754386 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.201754385965 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134502923977 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72862012847 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 160.0 207.018472906 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.46783625731 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 47.6753968425 52.1807786196 91% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 20.039408867 60% => OK
Sentence length: 28.5 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 94.6857375157 57.7814097925 164% => OK
Chars per sentence: 174.333333333 141.986410481 123% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.724660767414 138% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 56.5701754386 51.9672348444 109% => OK
Elegance: 1.5046728972 1.8405768891 82% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.312796201312 0.441005458295 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.167267043139 0.135418324435 124% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.106695636925 0.0829849096947 129% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.650784288858 0.58762219726 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.175007109523 0.147661913831 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128405522536 0.193483328276 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0996487743564 0.0970749176394 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.305540185441 0.42659136922 72% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0873074839035 0.0774707102158 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.182629565606 0.312017818177 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0925533979483 0.0698173142475 133% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.33743842365 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 9.0 14.657635468 61% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.