The author of the argument claims that Prunty County should undertake the same kind of road improvement project as taken by Butler County to reduce the number of accident instead of reducing the speed limit. As per acknowledging the Butler County conclusion, the method appears vague and totally unfruitful. Furthermore, there are any too many loopholes in the entire argument that need to take into consideration for proper evaluation of the problem.
Firstly, the argument does not provide any computational data statistics for the number of accidents occurred before and after the implementation of speed limit change methodology, and how of many of them tried to exceed the speed limit. Had we have the data for the number of number of accidents occurred at speed limit 55 miles per hour out of total vehicles that crossed the highway to number of accidents occurred at speed limit 45 miles per hour out of total vehicles that crossed the highway, we could have compared the two and could reach to a sound result.
Secondly, the argument claims that Prunty County should apply the same method as the Butler County to decrease the number of accidents. Nonetheless, without proper evidence regarding the condition and texture of the roads, we can not arrive a proper conclusion. There is a possibility that the roads are already in better condition and does not need further improvement and implication of penalties could be a better solution. Another possibility is that the roads are across a mountainous region or passes through a tunnel where there is no scope of increasing the lane width. Hence, without proper awareness regarding the situation of roads, commenting any method to decrease the accidents is unsubstantial.
Thirdly, the claim clearly states that the Butler County's roads have been renovated five years ago and the information after what happened for the next four years is missing and still the reduction has reached only up to 25 percent which is not quite appreciable. There is a humongous scope that there could be better ways to attain the desired result.
In summary, the entire claim is full of loopholes and surely unconvincing and weak.
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 16
- Critical judgement of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. 50
- Important truths begin as outrageous, or at least uncomfortable, attacks upon the accepted wisdom of the time. 79
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 54
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 91
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK. better to say: maybe other reasons caused the effort failed.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not ok
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 13 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1782 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.978 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.653 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 86 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.538 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.322 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.615 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.638 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 246, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[4]
Message: Possible agreement error – use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...tried to exceed the speed limit. Had we have the data for the number of number of ac...
^^^^
Line 3, column 268, Rule ID: PHRASE_REPETITION[1]
Message: This phrase is duplicated. You should probably leave only 'number of'.
Suggestion: number of
...eed limit. Had we have the data for the number of number of accidents occurred at speed limit 55 mi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, nonetheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, in summary, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1822.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 358.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08938547486 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73365376272 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.480446927374 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 566.1 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.079751695 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.153846154 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.5384615385 23.324526521 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 5.70786347227 174% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.235377310081 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0672369519316 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787517394834 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105422567677 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0838523523126 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.