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.
In the given argument, author makes a statement over issue faced by commuters of Blue Highway. Author believe it is due to lack of enough widening of highway has lead to traffic congestion, thus, they further propose a solution to make a separate lane for motorists. But opponents by giving example of Green Highway suggests instead to add bicycle lane, as many area residents are keen bicyclists. Though the author tries to prove his points to certain comparisons but have lead to make some assumptions and results in loop holes in the arguments.
Firstly, author states that commuters complain about increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway. Here author has not provided us with adequate details regarding complaint survey about which author is talking about. This lead to rising of several types of questions such as Are commuters regular travelers?, Do they frequently take Blue Highway to commute?, Is the only reason for traffic congestion width of the lane? and many more. Thus, we can not accept authors statement without any strong evidence regarding complaints.
Author also tells us about statement made by opponents by giving example of Green Highway, that is due to addition of motorist lane have worsened traffic jams. The statement made by opponents are not attached with any kind of proof in argument, but it is just a vague and hallow assumption. Furthermore, we can also question that only adding motorist lane is responsible for traffic jams? Some alternate reasons can be given as rash driving of people, not enough widening of Highway, due to degrading quality of roads and many more. Also we are not provided with statistics of how frequently traffic congestion are observed currently and at what extent it is. This makes us doubtful about the statement made by opponents.
Moreover, author also tells that opponents have suggested a solution on this to add a bicycle lane as many area residents are keen bicyclist. This is really vague assumption that, if someone is bicyclist he will frequently use bicycle for commuting. This is a possibility that they use bicycle as an exercise medium and not prefer it for traveling. Also, they may ride bicycle in local area or outskirts of city and not on Highways. Also we can question the assumption about whether the people will adopt the advice given after making such bicycle lane? If not, this may lead to huge losses. So, making these kind of prediction without a proper survey is not acceptable.
At the end, author we may advice author to avoid comparison between Blue Highway and Green Highway, and focus on factors that influence Blue Highway commuters and make a proper survey document to avoid vague assumptions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 448 350
No. of Characters: 2195 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.601 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.9 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.522 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.541 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.309 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.141 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 419, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...r traffic congestion width of the lane? and many more. Thus, we can not accept auth...
^^^
Line 3, column 533, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...grading quality of roads and many more. Also we are not provided with statistics of ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 433, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... outskirts of city and not on Highways. Also we can question the assumption about wh...
^^^^
Line 4, column 603, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
...his may lead to huge losses. So, making these kind of prediction without a proper survey i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 27, Rule ID: GIVE_ADVISE[4]
Message: Did you mean 'advise' (a verb)?
Suggestion: advise
... acceptable. At the end, author we may advice author to avoid comparison between Blue...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, if, may, moreover, really, regarding, so, thus, kind of, such as, talking about
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2248.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 448.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01785714286 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60065326758 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61349519664 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464285714286 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.8469333114 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.7391304348 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4782608696 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17391304348 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243675965328 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.072501137312 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0960885418957 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153127515727 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.067052814912 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.