The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:
"If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste."
The argument in the letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown is about encouraging the residents of the Masontown to recycle. The reason, the author gives is that it will save money. Also since the neighboring Hayesworthtown had done the same thing and benefited form it, it will also lead to success in their town. The argument at first looks convincing, but when we study in depth we encounter a lot of fallacies.
The first loophole of the argument is that the author gives the recommendation of recycling inorder to save money on garbage disposal fees. On what basis he concluded that on recycling their town people will save money on garbage disposal fees?What methods of recycling are they going to employ? Also which materials are they going to recycle? The author has failed to give details on the recycling materials and process as the cost behind recycling might differ for different materials. If recycling of some material is difficult, then it might lead to more cost in the process.
The second loophole is that the author assumes that since the neighboring town, Hayesowrth, passed a law on recycling and have seen garbage disposal costs decrease significantly , the same benefits Masontown people will have if they passed the same law. The author fails to notice here that just because the law is passed doesn't mean it lead to decrease in garbage disposal cost. What are the real reasons for the decrease in garbage costs. Since both towns are different , the outcome of one town may not be necessarily be same for the other. Were the garbage costs same in both town initially? What amount of garbage was disposed everyday in Hayesworth town?
Furthermore if Hayesworth town had more garbage of paper and glass and they recycled it which might have lead to decrease in cost of garbage disposal. What type of garbage is more in Masontown? If Masontown does recycling of paper and glass but the garbage is more of other materials, there would be no impact of recycling on garbage disposal cost. Thus the author should find out more details on the materials to be recycled in Masontown and then reach a conclusion.
The author states that if they organised an advertising campaign then it will encourage the residents to recycle. What if after the campaign the residents are not convinced enough for recycling? Does all recycling methods lead to decrease in garbage disposal costs? The author should conduct a survey in the town to find out if all the residents are agreeing on this method of recycling.
The argument can be strengthened if the author answers the above questions. If the author does an in-depth analysis on this topic and find out more information regarding the recycling process and the type of materials to be recycled and also the main reasons for the decrease in the cost of garbage disposal of Hayesworth town so tha the can convince the Masontown people to adapt recycling method. As it stands however, the argument is flawed.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...depth we encounter a lot of fallacies. The first loophole of the argument is th...
^^^
Line 3, column 245, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: What
...ill save money on garbage disposal fees?What methods of recycling are they going to ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 297, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... of recycling are they going to employ? Also which materials are they going to recyc...
^^^^
Line 5, column 178, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ge disposal costs decrease significantly , the same benefits Masontown people will...
^^
Line 5, column 323, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ere that just because the law is passed doesnt mean it lead to decrease in garbage dis...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 338, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'leads'?
Suggestion: leads
...ecause the law is passed doesnt mean it lead to decrease in garbage disposal cost. W...
^^^^
Line 5, column 472, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ge costs. Since both towns are different , the outcome of one town may not be nece...
^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...disposed everyday in Hayesworth town? Furthermore if Hayesworth town had more ...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...posed everyday in Hayesworth town? Furthermore if Hayesworth town had more garbage of ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 350, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... of recycling on garbage disposal cost. Thus the author should find out more details...
^^^^
Line 9, column 347, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...e town to find out if all the residents are agreeing on this method of recycling. The arg...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'thus']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.265567765568 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.181318681319 0.15541462614 117% => OK
Adjectives: 0.047619047619 0.0836205057962 57% => OK
Adverbs: 0.03663003663 0.0520304965353 70% => OK
Pronouns: 0.032967032967 0.0272364105082 121% => OK
Prepositions: 0.139194139194 0.125424944231 111% => OK
Participles: 0.0512820512821 0.0416121511921 123% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.6329245007 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0311355311355 0.026700313972 117% => OK
Particles: 0.00549450549451 0.001811407834 303% => OK
Determiners: 0.122710622711 0.113004496875 109% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.025641025641 0.0255425247493 100% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0164835164835 0.0127820249294 129% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2989.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 510.0 446.07635468 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.86078431373 6.12365571057 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75217629947 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.337254901961 0.378187486979 89% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.264705882353 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.2 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.125490196078 0.135150697306 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6329245007 2.79052419416 94% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.382352941176 0.469332199767 81% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 43.4706653928 52.1807786196 83% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.6153846154 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.7556664265 57.7814097925 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.961538462 141.986410481 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6153846154 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 3.58251231527 307% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 46.0859728507 51.9672348444 89% => OK
Elegance: 1.81751824818 1.8405768891 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.445219754901 0.441005458295 101% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.191346500082 0.135418324435 141% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0823395136695 0.0829849096947 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.580943857976 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.153171463097 0.147661913831 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.189081224363 0.193483328276 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.081199221501 0.0970749176394 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.440138952111 0.42659136922 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.075945556546 0.0774707102158 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.323435321561 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0382486062387 0.0698173142475 55% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: This is not the final score. 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.