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.
Given the effectiveness of safety measure adopted in Butler country, it may be very tempting for Prunty County to abandon its own “failed effort”, and embrace those of Butler’s. However, the claim made by the argument that those measures would be equally effective in Butler’s county seems to be self-proclaimed, rather than predicated on any distinct evidence.
Firstly, the argument claims that driving down speed limit from 55 to 45 miles has failed to assuage number of causalities in the county. However, it doesn’t mention whether measure itself has failed or its implementation has failed. Given the report by highway patrol, it seems likely that rather than measure itself, its implementation must have been ineffective. So, it better for county to analyse the effectiveness of decreasing speed limit by making the rule more stringent, so that all the drivers would follow it. Only if after effective implementation, the accident number still shows no sign of going down, then county should take into consideration other measures of road safety.
In addition, the argument also suggests Prunty County to take other effective measures: increasing lane width, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility, to reduce road causalities. However, it doesn’t take into consideration the present condition of Prunty County. Who knows Prunty County may already have these infrastructures beforehand? Or, the economic condition of Prunty County may be so ailing that it couldn’t afford to make these refurbishments (due to which it could have opted for economically viable option of reducing speed limit). So, it is mandatory to collect information on present status of these infrastructures and economic condition of County.
Even if, the economic condition of both counties might be same and infrastructures in Prunty County needed refurbishments, we cannot confidently say if these improvements would reduce the number of road casualties, because the cause of road accidents in the county may be totally unrelated to these infrastructures. For instance, if driver’s unwillingness to follow traffic rules in the County may have been causing ever-growing number of road accidents there, then any amount of improvement in infrastructure would prove ineffective. So, it would be better to first point out the major cause of accidents and then only act accordingly.
Finally, though it may be effective to adopt measures taken by Butler County to ameliorate the condition of road accidents in Prunty County, one cannot assert blithely that these measures would be effective there. It is better to amass evidences to bolster assumptions made in the argument and only move forward if these evidences buttress the assumptions effectively.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 428 350
No. of Characters: 2259 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.548 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.278 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.017 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.044 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.938 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.372 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.139 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'betters', 'wells'?
Suggestion: betters; wells
...tion must have been ineffective. So, it better for county to analyse the effectiveness...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, so, still, then, for instance, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2364.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56235294118 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2416186311 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496470588235 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 747.9 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.7118940692 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.058823529 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.41176470588 5.70786347227 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210319979493 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0739812567511 0.0743258471296 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459546772107 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120222102177 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0655663217311 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.3550499002 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.93 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.