The following appeared n 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 residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighbouring 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."
In a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown it appeared that the speaker has asserted a claim that if we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal, the residents of Masontown should be encouraged to recycle more. The claim is further strengthened by the speaker by citing the example of their neighbouring town "Hayesworth", in which a law was passed requiring all the households to recycle paper and glass or else would have to pay the fine. Moreover, due to this in Hayesworth the garden disposal costs significantly decreased. So, the speaker claims that if we implement an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle Masontown would save money on disposal of its waste. The recommendation done by the author relies on assumptions and the argument is weak, and has several major flaws.
Since the speaker has asserted the example of their neighbouring town Hayesworth which implemented the law to recycle the things but, the speaker doesn't provide the information of how many people followed the law and if the fine was imposed on them who collected the fines, moreover only two items were recycled and how much amount of the garbage disposal cost did they save. Although, speaker compares the people of Hayesworth and Masontown it is not evident that on what basis he does so. It’s likely that the people of Hayesworth are more ecofriendly and so have started the recycling of the households while the people are not concerned about the surrounding.
In addition, the speaker also claims that there should be advertising campaign for encouraging the residents to recycle but he never says who would bring about the campaign. It might be also possible that there is no place near the Hayesworth for the proper disposal of the households and that might have affected the areas of Hayesworth so they passed this law for recycling. There are several factors which should be considered before comparing the two cities that it might happen that the people in Hayesworth are literate and are young youths with the passion for saving the environment and are rich enough to afford the recycling machines for their household things. However, the people of Masontown may not be literate enough to know more about the environment and are aged people who cannot afford the things required for recycling. Also, it has not been asserted by the speaker that how would they separate the materials of the paper and glass and what techniques would they adopt for recycling. So, to strengthened the recommendation the argument must provide proper methods which are going to be adopted and more appropraite data needs to be provided to encourage people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 147, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... to recycle the things but, the speaker doesnt provide the information of how many peo...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.223140495868 0.25644967241 87% => OK
Verbs: 0.196280991736 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0413223140496 0.0836205057962 49% => Some adjectives wanted.
Adverbs: 0.0557851239669 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0413223140496 0.0272364105082 152% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.123966942149 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0619834710744 0.0416121511921 149% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.84928817658 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0309917355372 0.026700313972 116% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.119834710744 0.113004496875 106% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0289256198347 0.0255425247493 113% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0247933884298 0.0127820249294 194% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2695.0 2731.13054187 99% => OK
No of words: 447.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.02908277405 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.355704697987 0.378187486979 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.266219239374 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.196868008949 0.208842608468 94% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.140939597315 0.135150697306 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84928817658 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 207.018472906 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438478747204 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.1581746926 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 14.0 20.039408867 70% => OK
Sentence length: 31.9285714286 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.1382880827 57.7814097925 127% => OK
Chars per sentence: 192.5 141.986410481 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.9285714286 23.2022227129 138% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.14285714286 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 58.5504953659 51.9672348444 113% => OK
Elegance: 1.39436619718 1.8405768891 76% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.429433013362 0.441005458295 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.175785686581 0.135418324435 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0957081549389 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.640464360637 0.58762219726 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.125079213573 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.224238418565 0.193483328276 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12968606718 0.0970749176394 134% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.642966248969 0.42659136922 151% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0215123996904 0.0774707102158 28% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.370998341955 0.312017818177 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.139451997102 0.0698173142475 200% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.