"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. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the prompt given, the opponents aver that adding a bicycle lane will lead to dwindling of rush-hour traffic. However, this conclusion is based on unfounded assumptions that if not substantiated will render the argument unpersuasive. For the argument to not remain tenuous, the author needs to provide evidence for three assumptions.
To begin, opponents assumes that the same conditions present in Blue Highway were also present in Green Highway. However, this might not be the case, perhaps the Green highway is located in a metropolis as compared to the Blue highway which might be located in the suburbs. If that were the case, then it is possible that people migrated to town and more commuters engaged the road despite the widening of Green highway, thereby leading to worsening of traffic jams at rush-hours. If that were the case, then the opponents conclusion that the widening of the lane would lead to the same scenario of Green highway in Blue highway does not hold water.
Further, opponents presume that due to area resident’s fervid interests in cycling, the addition of a bicycle lane will less usage of vehicles on the highway and more usage of bicycles. However, that might not be the case, perhaps, the average distance of their workplace to their place of residence is not at a bikeable distance. Also, it is possible that residents take riding bicycles as a hobby and wouldn’t want to use it as commute for their professional work. If any of these scenarios were true, then the opponents conclusion that an additional lane will reduce rush-hour traffic is not overly persuasive.
Finally, opponents did not take it account that there is a potential high risk of fatal accidents if a bicycle lane is built, it is assumed that such action will be safe. However, this might not be the case. It is possible, due to rush-hour, vehicles can move at unsafe speeds which inevitably can lead to fatal accidents with a consequence of even worse traffic-jam. A resident, late for work can hurriedly board a vehicle and to meet up to time, drives recklessly and possibly hits a cyclist at a point of an overtake. If that were true, then the opponents conclusion is invalid at worst and specious at best.
In conclusion, for the opponents conclusion to be persuasive, more evidence is needed at three fronts; the conditions of green highway, the average distance of residence to workplace and the possible potential of accidents occurring.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 1987 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.8 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.641 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 140 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.615 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 514, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
...-hours. If that were the case, then the opponents conclusion that the widening of the lan...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 514, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
... of these scenarios were true, then the opponents conclusion that an additional lane will...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 36, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'accounts'?
Suggestion: accounts
.... Finally, opponents did not take it account that there is a potential high risk of ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 509, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...d possibly hits a cyclist at a point of an overtake. If that were true, then the opponents ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 550, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
...n overtake. If that were true, then the opponents conclusion is invalid at worst and spec...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 24, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
...ious at best. In conclusion, for the opponents conclusion to be persuasive, more evide...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, however, if, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2055.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97578692494 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75650307249 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.443099273608 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 640.8 705.55239521 91% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.1205996426 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.882352941 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2941176471 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256424440622 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0857624063158 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0687279522115 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.138832941097 0.128457276422 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0712564839577 0.0628817314937 113% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.9 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.