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

Essay topics:

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.

The author claims here that adding a bicycle lane rather than motorists’ lobby to Blue Highway will eliminate the problems of rush-hour traffic effectively. Stating in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. In support of this argument, the author reasons that one year ago, Green Highway added a motorists’ lobby, which led this highway to a much worse traffic condition. Also, the residents nearby Blue Highway are eager bicyclists. However, the evidence provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion.

First of all, the argument readily assumes that Green Highway and Blue Highway are entirely similar. This assumption merely is made without much solid ground. For example, there is a possibility that Green Highway’s motorists’ lane was made of low quality. So, people were reluctant to use it for the commute. Also, it is possible that the population of motorists was not much high around the Green Highway, and consequently, most of the residents preferred to use their cars. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that what is the exact condition of Green Highway in comparison with Blue Highway.

The author also points out that one year ago, adding motorists’ lobby to Green Highway did not work for decreasing traffic properly. This case, again, is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any information about the condition of the traffic in the Green Highway this year. To illustrate further, it is probable that this year, there is not any severe traffic jam in the Green Highway, and so, it could be a good reason to apply the same strategy to add motorists’ lobby to Blue Highway. Even it is possible that people were not sure about the motorists’ lane safety for the first time, and gradually they have begun to use it. If the argument had provided evidence of the main reasons for Green Highway’s circumstances and residents’ opinions about the added lane last year, then it would have been a lot more convincing for the reader.

Finally, the author cites that the residents are eager bicyclists. Therefore, adding a bicycle lane will mitigate the traffic jam around Blue Highway. However, careful investigation of the evidence reveals that it provides little reliable support for the author’s conclusion in several critical aspects. For example, maybe people only like bicycling, and so, they do not use it for the commute. Moreover, there is a possibility that their workplaces are in the distance, and it may be not very easy for them to commute all the distance by bicycle. Without providing convincing information about the rate of bicycle usage by residents, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are not substantive evidence.

In conclusion, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that adding a bicycle lane instead of a motorists’ lobby will improve the traffic condition in the Blue Highway.

Votes
Average: 8 (4 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 308, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...So, people were reluctant to use it for the commute. Also, it is possible that the populati...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 388, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...cycling, and so, they do not use it for the commute. Moreover, there is a possibility that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, moreover, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all

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

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2613.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 504.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18452380952 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96071572175 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428571428571 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 820.8 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3117743833 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.608695652 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9130434783 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.73913043478 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252016509627 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0876564324937 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0802662155823 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168462174295 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396830178478 0.0628817314937 63% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.87 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

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: 23 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2476 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.913 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.553 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.913 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.949 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5