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 patro

Essay topics:

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.

The Prunty County recommends the road improvement in order to reduce the number of accidents at highways. To support the claim, it points out to some evidences such as similar steps implement in Butler had reduced the accidents by 25 per cent and restrictions on speed limit that was put on last year have failed. Here, the author’s chain of reasoning seems true at first sight, however, it is based on certain unwarranted assumptions about similarity between Prunty and Butler. Therefore, in order to better evaluate the argument and analyse its logical soundness, additional evidences are required that are foundational to the line of reasoning.

First, are Prunty and Butler comparable? In other words, the author has assumed that Butler and Prunty are similar in nature, thus, the obtained results in Butler would replicate in Prunty as well. However, it may be the case that Prunty and Butler are different, such as in last 5 years significant reduction was witnessed in the population of Butler because of exodus of people in search of jobs and employment to other locations, thus, reduced the people on road and consequently less accidents. But, Prunty may be a location where people come to settle in since it may be an economic hub. Further, Prunty may be a tourist location where people would like to travel to and these people by being come from different regions/countries may not aware of traffic guidelines, thus, causing higher number of accidents. Whereas, Butler may be a location where no tourist attraction is extant, thus even people of Butler go to other locations on vacations, thus, making it population even smaller and consequent reduction in accidents. Therefore, without considering these details, the recommendation remains unsupported.

Secondly, are roads responsible for accidents? In other words, the author has assumed that road conditions are such that they are responsible for higher number of accidents in Prunty. However, it may find that highway lanes in Prunty are wider than any other lanes of any County and thus, people riding cars and bikes are believed not to have made any complain or request regarding the width of highways. Further, it may also find that Prunty County spends significant amount of its budget on maintaining road conditions, thus, its roads are found to be smooth and well paved and its highways do not have any dangerous interactions but long straight roads and on minor intersection, it has deployed high frequency signals and lights of high intensity to provide the indication to the driver for the intersections ahead. Therefore, without knowing the current status of roads of Prunty, the proposal of road improvement project cannot be considered accurately to prevent accidents.

Finally, are drivers and riders follow traffic rules and proceed cautiously? In other words, the author has assumed that drivers and riders in Prunty are cautious drivers and they follow traffic rules, thus, not responsible for accidents, but the condition of roads are attributed to accidents. However, it may find that Prunty is a tourist location where the tourist keep arriving throughout the whole year, thus by being a citizen of another County or Country, they may not be aware of the traffic guidelines and rules such as to drive left side or right side, thus a major contributing factor in accidents. Further, it may also find that the natives of Prunty are flouting the rules bluntly as mentioned in the prompt that speed restrictions failed to produce any desired results and it may be County where patrol officers are corrupt, thus people are playing with traffic rules as per their will and are responsible for accidents. Therefore, unless the recommendation cover these details, it cannot be used to support the argument.

In conclusion, with lack of comprehensive chain of reasoning, the recommendation as it stands now, is unpersuasive. If the author is able to offer more evidence, perhaps in the form of research study covering the type of location Prunty is, manner of patrol officer in enforcing the law, tourist preferences to come to this location and propriety of natives of Prunty to abide by the traffic laws, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the argument.

Average: 5.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 484, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun accidents is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ced the people on road and consequently less accidents. But, Prunty may be a locatio...
Line 9, column 473, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...evaluate the viability of the argument.

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, whereas, as to, in conclusion, such as, in other words

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 39.0 19.6327345309 199% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 11.1786427146 259% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 102.0 55.5748502994 184% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3578.0 2260.96107784 158% => OK
No of words: 698.0 441.139720559 158% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12607449857 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.1400087186 4.56307096286 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82360596299 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 299.0 204.123752495 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428366762178 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1115.1 705.55239521 158% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 99.7842474053 57.8364921388 173% => OK
Chars per sentence: 155.565217391 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.347826087 23.324526521 130% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.60869565217 5.70786347227 133% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.144661021233 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.047622852975 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0489302341247 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0902057268692 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0540933311137 0.0628817314937 86% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?

Write the essay in 30 minutes.

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:

'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.'

we may say:
1. it may take time to see the speed falling down to 45;

2. other reasons may caused the fail.



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: 23 15
No. of Words: 699 350
No. of Characters: 3477 1500
No. of Different Words: 283 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.142 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.974 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.68 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 270 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 189 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 121 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 89 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.391 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 17.825 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.957 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.322 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5