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
The author of the argument claims that in a attempt of improve highway safety, Prunty decreased its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour in all highways, but this effort failed, then Prounty county had undertaken some road improvement projects like increasing lane widths, improving visibility etc. Now, the Butler County experienced 25 % less reported accidents in last years compared to five year ago.
The author's claim that number of reported accidents has decreased because of the road improvement projects fraught with erroneous logic and conclusion.
First of all, when after decreasing speed limit from 55 to 45, the author says that number of accidents has not decreased. What is source of this data that number of accidents not decreased. I could be possible that number of accidents had decreased but it was not calculated properly. According to author, based of reports of highway petrol pump, drivers were exceeding the speed limit, but there no concrete data is provided regarding speed range. It could be possible that, drivers were increasing there speeds till 100 and even beyond 100 and still there is no increased in the number of accidents.
Secondly, roads improvements project have been performed, but after road improvements, there were 25 % less reported accidents in the past year compare to five year ago. What is the reasoning of comparing a data of past year with five year ago data. It might be possible that, five year ago, there were more number of vehicles, so there were more number of reported accients, but in the past year, there were less number of vehicles hence there are less number of accidents happen. If this would be the case, then saying that the road imporvements had decreased accidents numbers would be errneous and unlogical.
In summary, the argument of author's falls short in many aspects. The author did start the argument with a sound premise but he later failed to support his position but appropriate logic and reasoning. If author had included more evidence regarding the number of data, the actual number of data, and had compared the accidents' data to successive past 5-10 years data, then author's thought process in progressing from premise to the stated conclusion would not have been so abrupt and jarring. Futher the inclusion of other factors like number of total vehicle in roads, more authencity of accident data helped author to drive his position in a more appropriate manner. But, in the absense of this, the argument is flawed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: It might be possible that, five year ago, there were more number of vehicles, so there were more number of reported accients, but in the past year, there were less number of vehicles hence there are less number of accidents happen.
Error: accients Suggestion: accents
Sentence: If this would be the case, then saying that the road imporvements had decreased accidents numbers would be errneous and unlogical.
Error: unlogical Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: imporvements Suggestion: improvements
Error: errneous Suggestion: erroneous
Sentence: Futher the inclusion of other factors like number of total vehicle in roads, more authencity of accident data helped author to drive his position in a more appropriate manner.
Error: authencity Suggestion: authority
Sentence: But, in the absense of this, the argument is flawed.
Error: absense Suggestion: absence
-------------------
argument 1 -- not OK. better to say: maybe other reasons caused the failed effort.
argument 2 -- not OK. better to say: maybe it worked only for 5 years ago.
argument 3 -- minimum 3 arguments wanted.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 416 350
No. of Characters: 2037 1500
No. of Different Words: 180 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.516 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.897 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.486 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.278 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.381 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.572 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 43, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...e author of the argument claims that in a attempt of improve highway safety, Prun...
^
Line 8, column 317, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'accidents'' or 'accident's'?
Suggestion: accidents'; accident's
...al number of data, and had compared the accidents data to successive past 5-10 years data...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, in summary, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2095.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 416.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03605769231 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51620172871 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54749643792 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471153846154 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 632.7 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.0127431422 57.8364921388 123% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.235294118 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.4705882353 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47058823529 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.316877246402 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105673969348 0.0743258471296 142% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.10550666644 0.0701772020484 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201619930442 0.128457276422 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.160181029419 0.0628817314937 255% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.36 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.