In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patrol, many drivers are exceeding the speed limit. Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the proposal, the author recommends Prunty County to carry out certain measures to improve its highway safety. To support the proposal, the author points out that the similar measures taken in Butler County five years ago are so effective that its accident rate dropped by 25 percent. However, additional evidence is required to fully evaluate the argument. Those pieces of evidence might strengthen the argument or, on the contrary, undermine it.
The first evidence we need is the feasibility that the measures taken in Butler County can be equally applied to Prunty County. Widening lane widths, modifying the rough surface on highways, and setting up alarms at dangerous intersections which worked well for Bulter County, however, might encounter roadblocks in Prunty County. Perhaps, the lanes in Prunty County are wide enough compared to the standard or even relaxed lanes. Or, due to a limitation of bad weather, the highway surface could not be remodified. Such scenarios would certainly weaken the author's argument. Without the evidence to support the feasibility of copying those measures, the decision-maker in Prunty County cannot be convinced that it will be still effective to apply them.
Another piece of evidence that might be conducive to the evaluation is the credibility of the decrease of 25 percent reported accidents in Butler County. It is possible that hidden accidents were not reported either 5 years ago or nowadays. For instance, the number of accidents may be accurate 5 years ago, but it may be underestimated currently because of the pressure from the government. As a result, the argument would be enfeebled. On the contrary, the number may be lesser than it was reported in the past due to poor technology compared to the high-tech right now. This evidence would lead to a stronger argument.
Last but not least, one more evidence that is also important to the argument could come from the statement linking the non-decreased accidents with drivers who drive too fast. Of course, exceeding the speed limit can be a potential cause. However, there might be other factors that prohibit the accidents from declining. For example, the sign of speed limitation might not be obvious for the drivers to be noted. Or, perhaps raining or snowing frequently strikes Prunty County, bringing difficulties for the driver to slow down in certain ranges. If these are the cases, solutions to these problems would be more effective than copying the what Butler County did, thus the argument would be weaker.
In conclusion, even though the author proposed a solution that might be possible to make the highways in Prunty County safer, additional evidence should be given to make the argument more compelling and well-founded. This includes, but is not limited to, the feasibility of successfully copying measures taken in Prunty County, the credibility of the reported decrease, and the link between the accidents and driving too fast.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. we don't cast doubt on the data/evidence itself, but flaws behind those data/evidence.
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2420 1500
No. of Different Words: 229 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.052 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.67 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 197 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.958 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.142 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.294 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.481 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.085 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 559, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ch scenarios would certainly weaken the authors argument. Without the evidence to suppo...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, thus, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, of course, as a result, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2490.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 479.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19832985386 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67825486995 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73993537725 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482254697286 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 705.55239521 110% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.1007820934 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.75 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9583333333 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.08333333333 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188698223837 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601249777446 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0463723836145 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121508404438 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.02599942883 0.0628817314937 41% => 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: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.