The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper.
"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation 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 recommendation.
City residents are at odds about how to resolve traffic jams on Blue Highway. Commuters on the highway are experiencing lengthy commutes and want to reduce traffic by having the city widen the road with an additional lane. However, the motorists lobby has seen increased traffic jams on Green Highway following the addition of a lane, and believe that a bicycle lane is a better option. Unfortunately, without further information, it is impossible to tell if the addition of a bike lane would truly reduce commute times.
The first and most obvious problem here is that it would most likely take longer to ride a bicycle to work than to drive a car. If commuters want shorter commute times, suggesting that they ride a bike instead is unlikely to placate them. Perhaps a bike lane is a solution to a different problem-- carbon emissions, increase gas prices, etc, but it is not a solution for commuters who want to get to work more quickly. It might reduce the number of cars on the road, but it may not reduce commute times.
Second, it is hard to say if the additional lane on Green highway was in fact the cause of the increased traffic jams there. What else was happening in the area? Was there a housing boom? Did a new shopping mall open up? Was there construction elsewhere that caused commuters to take a detour through Green highway? A more comprehensive picture of events in the city at that time would shed light on the reason for the increased traffic jams and would inform city planners of issues to avoid should they decide to repeat the process on Blue highway.
In addition to lack of clarity about the cause of the traffic jams, there is only vague information given regarding the "many" residents who are "keen" bicyclists. How many is "many"? Half? 20 percent? And of those who are bicyclists, how many travel Blue highway to work? And what exactly is "keen"? Do they ride bicycles for sport? Pleasure? Is it a spectator sport for them? We need more information about the attitudes toward bicycling to see if a bike lane truly meets a need in the community. Bike lanes sound environmentally friendly and great for the health of city residents, but the issue here is commute time, not tree hugging and combating obesity.
Finally, additional evidence is needed about the long-term success of bike lanes. Has it worked well elsewhere in the city? We need to know if bike lanes have been implemented elsewhere in this city or in a city with similar demographics and traffic patterns in order to predict the impact on traffic flow and commute times.
People hate change, and the motorists lobby seems to be grasping at straws to block the widening of Blue highway with an additional lane. More information is needed about the use of bicycles in the city, as well as the possible reasons for traffic to increase on Green highway after the additional lane. The motorists lobby could improve their argument with evidence of bike lanes reducing commute times, not just the number of cars on the road. This evidence should come from elsewhere in the city or in a city with similar demographics and traffic flow. Or if their endgame is to have bike lanes installed, they could take a different angle and present evidence that bike lanes would benefit the environment and health of city residents.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 555, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... to repeat the process on Blue highway. In addition to lack of clarity about the...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 148, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...egarding the 'many' residents who are 'keen' bicyclists. How many ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 247, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
...y'? Half? 20 percent? And of those who are bicyclists, how many travel Blue highwa...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 653, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'commuted'.
Suggestion: commuted
...f city residents, but the issue here is commute time, not tree hugging and combating ob...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 328, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pact on traffic flow and commute times. People hate change, and the motorists lo...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, well, in addition, in fact, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2784.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 577.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82495667244 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90110439584 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72914358299 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.436741767764 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 891.9 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 3.0 0.471057884232 637% => Less interrogative sentences wanted.
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.1937558341 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.8 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2333333333 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.33333333333 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.20758483034 195% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262002256283 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0725677965138 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0590213820559 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149279431857 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0464177050131 0.0628817314937 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.9 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.