The author of the aargument claims that the replacing of Mathescam Bridge will be not be a effective measure. To support his arugument, author presents the evidence of demand of drivers, that they mainly ccomplain about uneven pavement and close lanes. So the expection of the commuter can be made by repairing the Mathescam Bridge in the evening time, when traffic is low. But, current proposal has increase the toll tax by 50%, which is not at all in the interest of the driver. Though the argument has merits, because of weak assumption, lack of evidence and vague language, the argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed. A few of the flaws are as followes
To begin with, the author assumes that the repairing of the Mathescam Bridge will solve the current problem of the bridge, which has uneven pavement and close lanes, and no need for a $12 million new bridge. However, the author has not mentioned any data that the repair cost will be much less the cost of the new bridge. If the repairing cost is much higher that $12 million, then the author argument will be weak.
Secondly, the author assumes that the repairing work can be done in the evening, when traffic is less. But, author fails to present any data that show the duration of completion the work. If the repair work takes 2 years to finish whereas the new Mathescam Bridge can be completed in 6 months. Then, the over all business loss for the both cities due to repair activity may be higher compare to the new bridge.
Lastly, the author claims that the current increase in toll tax will affect the transportation cost, which eventually affect the economy of both cities. There might be the possibility that after the establishment the new Mathescam Bridge, the mayor waives off the toll tax. But, the author argues the impact of the economical loss seeing the short time increase in toll. Moreover, there might be possibilities that the repairing of the bridge is not be cost effective if the cost near about $11 million. Then, the decision of new bridge is a good idea.
The argument, as written, is categorically unconvincing; the author could strengthen his argument if he provides few statistical data that cost of repair is very low and time take for the repairing activity is also low. Wsithout these information, the argument is less persuasive.
To conclude, though the author has presented an interesting argument, but deeply flawed. Had the author provides the data as mentioned above, the argument can be mage stronger. Otherwise, the argument will remain unconvincing.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 323 350
No. of Characters: 1522 1500
No. of Different Words: 148 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.239 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.712 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.506 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 67 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.124 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.765 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.595 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 316, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ut, the author argues the impact of the economical loss seeing the short time increase in ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 230, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...epairing activity is also low. Wsithout these information, the argument is less persuasive. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1586.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 323.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91021671827 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23936324884 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61236107911 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 155.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.479876160991 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 475.2 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 45.770224981 57.8364921388 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.2941176471 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.70588235294 5.70786347227 100% => 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 : 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: 0.263188056667 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0940686589822 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508319428844 0.0701772020484 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151330766619 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0614000260815 0.0628817314937 98% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 60.0 98.500998004 61% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.