"On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island's moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals."
The author of the argument has cited some facts and come to the conclusion that the best way to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians is to limit the number of mopeds on the streets during the busy summer months. However, the argument is rife with holes and unwarranted assumptions, and hence not strong enough to buttress the preceded conclusion.
First of all, the author's proposition is based on a questionable assumption that accidents occur mainly during the summer months, and that limiting the number of mopeds during that time will see to the reduction of accidents by 50 percent annually. However, there is no information in the passage to suggest the pattern of accients throughout the year. For all we know, majority of the accidents with mopeds could have occured during winter months when the streets are slippary due to snow. If this is the case, limiting moped numbers during summer months may not serve as an effective means to reduce accidents.
Additionally, the author implies that Balmer will be able to replicate the results of Neighboring Seaville. Since, there is no account of any similarities or differences between the towns in the argument, it is equally probable that the same law may engender different results in either towns. Hence, it would be imprudent for Balmer island to enforce the limits based solely on its success with the neighbours. Perhaps the Balmer island council could come up with alternate ways to deal with the situation. For example, the council could enforce mandatory safety measures like wearing safety gears while riding, issuing liscence after a thorough trial and such for the moped users. Furthermore, the council may need to dig deep into the cause of the accidents before attributing the fault entirely on the moped riders. It is plausible that the accidents were due to carelessness on part of the pedestrians. Pedestrians could have been lax about safety on the streets; jaywalking and ignoring the pedestrian bridge, and thus in part may have been responsible for the accidents. Instead of reducing the mopeds on street, the council could mandate rules for safety on the street.
The author has failed to acknowledge the impact of enforcing the limits on the island's moped rental companies. The law is one way or the other, likely impede the business of such companies and as a result could be met with resistance by them. The council should look further than mandating the limits and make sure that it does not give rise to new sets of problems.
To sum it up, various avenues are left unexplored in the passasge, due to which the conclusion seems feeble. It would be wise to address those areas prior to setting any firm conclusion on the matter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 250, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...t could be met with resistance by them. The council should look further than mandat...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'thus', 'while', 'for example', 'as a result', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241650294695 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.151277013752 0.15541462614 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0825147347741 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0373280943026 0.0520304965353 72% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0176817288802 0.0272364105082 65% => OK
Prepositions: 0.137524557957 0.125424944231 110% => OK
Participles: 0.0432220039293 0.0416121511921 104% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66578033244 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0373280943026 0.026700313972 140% => OK
Particles: 0.00392927308448 0.001811407834 217% => OK
Determiners: 0.137524557957 0.113004496875 122% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0294695481336 0.0255425247493 115% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00392927308448 0.0127820249294 31% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2767.0 2731.13054187 101% => OK
No of words: 461.0 446.07635468 103% => OK
Chars per words: 6.0021691974 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.377440347072 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.260303687636 0.287650121315 90% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.17136659436 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.123644251627 0.135150697306 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66578033244 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 207.018472906 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.518438177874 0.469332199767 110% => OK
Word variations: 60.2785108893 52.1807786196 116% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 23.05 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9769663272 57.7814097925 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.35 141.986410481 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.05 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 49.0803687636 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 2.04761904762 1.8405768891 111% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.656238359744 0.441005458295 149% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120901765949 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0562504408613 0.0829849096947 68% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.640739237115 0.58762219726 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.112625631443 0.147661913831 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.30399329962 0.193483328276 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.113598059523 0.0970749176394 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.525768757041 0.42659136922 123% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.138720780328 0.0774707102158 179% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.468279866701 0.312017818177 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.12300402238 0.0698173142475 176% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.