"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
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 author of the letter addresses the issue of increase in commuting time due to high traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center during the rush-hours, proposing to add a bicycle lane, in contrast to the prevailing opinion of adding additional lane of traffic. To substantiate his argument, the author brings evidence of worsening of traffic jams after adding a lane to the nearby Green Highway last year. The author states that the adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway will inspire local residents to use bicycles for commuting and thus will result in reduction of rush-hour traffic. To my opinion, the authors' argument is logically flawed and is implausible in its current form.
First of all, the author's stance against adding an additional lane to Blue Highway bases on the evidence of worsening the traffic jams on neraby Green Highway after adding a lane. In other words, the author assumes that the conditions on Green Highway are the same as on Blue Highway, without providing a substantial evidence to convince that it is indeed the case. Maybe the Green Highway connects a more populated suburban area to the city center. Moreover, the author says that the lane has been added to Green Highway a year ago, without clarifying whether the problem still persists. A year ago the situation might be totally different and incomparable with the current situation on Blue Highway. Therefore, without giving a proper information about similarities of these two highways as well as the stability of the situations and conditions during this year the author cannot persuade me that adding an additional lane exacerbated the situation.
Next, the author's proposal for adding a bicycle line to Blue Highway is based on the assumptions that many areas residents are keen bicyclists. However, he does not present the source of this information. It is unclear, if the survey was conducted to determine the number of bicyclists in the neighboring area and what is the representative sample. It might turn out that only a few people were surveyed, turning the claim is incorrect due to the small sample size. Moreover, the next claim that adding the new bicycle lane will encourage residence to cycle is also unsubstantiated and mostly reflects author's personal opinion. Therefore, without the exact numbers it is hard to believe that author's proposal will be successful.
Lastly, the author assumes that people will be willing to use bicycles to reach the city center. However, there is no information about the distances, climate conditions or age of residents. Maybe it is snowing heavily for most of the year, thus making commuting to the city center by car is only possible option. Or maybe the city center is situated far from the neighborhood. The age of residents plays an important role as well, since if the local inhabitants are mostly senior people, mostly unwilling to cycle. Given any of these factors or even combination of them will render author's proposal as implausible.
In sum, the author's proposal sounds unpersuasive without a detailed information about similarity of both highways, the demographics of the community and the information about distances and climactic conditions.
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 527 350
No. of Characters: 2645 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.791 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.019 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.767 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.609 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 628, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...f rush-hour traffic. To my opinion, the authors argument is logically flawed and is imp...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... its current form. First of all, the authors stance against adding an additional lan...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 42, Rule ID: ADD_AN_ADDITIONAL[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'adding a lane'.
Suggestion: adding a lane
...irst of all, the authors stance against adding an additional lane to Blue Highway bases on the evidence ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 83, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dding an additional lane to Blue Highway bases on the evidence of worsening the t...
^^
Line 3, column 902, Rule ID: ADD_AN_ADDITIONAL[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'adding a lane'.
Suggestion: adding a lane
...year the author cannot persuade me that adding an additional lane exacerbated the situation. Next, the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 11, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...exacerbated the situation. Next, the authors proposal for adding a bicycle line to B...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 549, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ew bicycle lane will encourage residence to cycle is also unsubstantiated and mos...
^^
Line 5, column 612, Rule ID: PERSONAL_OPINION_FRIENDSHIP[1]
Message: Use simply 'opinion'.
Suggestion: opinion
...bstantiated and mostly reflects authors personal opinion. Therefore, without the exact numbers i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 203, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ditions or age of residents. Maybe it is snowing heavily for most of the year, th...
^^
Line 7, column 497, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...bitants are mostly senior people, mostly unwilling to cycle. Given any of these f...
^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...roposal as implausible. In sum, the authors proposal sounds unpersuasive without a ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, well, in contrast, as well as, first of all, in contrast to, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2704.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13092979127 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78994688765 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476280834915 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 848.7 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.9642605999 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.565217391 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9130434783 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.60869565217 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299826506205 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0874213882764 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0968101259881 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.156860514084 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121137864488 0.0628817314937 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.77 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.