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 argument topic pointed out that the solution of the rush-hour-traffic on Blue highway between Suburbs and the City center. Author reveals that this problem is solved by adding the bicycle lane: residents of the city are liked to use the bicycle. This seems to be easy and simple idea but in fact it is not that simple as mentioned by this prompt. This argument contains many holes in an assumption. Hence, argument is incomplete.
First of all, author compares the one city problem with the another city; however, he has no idea of the details of the physical structure and nature of the residents. He has not given any information about the rules and regulation. Traffic jam basically depends upon the traffic rule. If, strict traffic rule is implemented, vehicles follow the all the rules, which helps to improve the traffic. It is needed to find out the rush hour and then make a particular rule for driving the vehicles. Government can rule the time hour to drive the vehicle on the road. For instance, schools bus should pass though that road before the late evening. All the construction related vehicle should drive at the night time. Pedestrian should follow the separate path. This type of the solution may help for this problem.
The second and weak assumption is that author says that adding the extra traffic lane is not solution. I want to give the same suggestion that widening the road is permanent solution. We know every year vehicles are adding in that city, that creates the big problem in the future time. Hence, it is better to add the extra lane.
The third and totally foolhardy thought is that residents are agree to use the bicycle. How can author can say? What is the reason behind it. If, they want to use the bicycle, there is more bicycle. He has not provide the actual data of the vehicles. Without providing the solid reasons, we can not say adding the bicycle lane can solve this problem.
In summary, in order to solve the traffic problem, it is needed to add the extra traffic lane. Recently, this problem can solved by making the strict rule and regulation is appropriate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 63, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'agreed'.
Suggestion: agreed
...foolhardy thought is that residents are agree to use the bicycle. How can author can ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 210, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...ycle, there is more bicycle. He has not provide the actual data of the vehicles. Withou...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, third, for instance, in fact, in summary, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1746.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.71891891892 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4240335479 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.508108108108 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 4.96107784431 302% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 13.0 22.8473053892 57% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.3132449757 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 64.6666666667 119.503703932 54% => More chars_per_sentence wanted.
Words per sentence: 13.7037037037 23.324526521 59% => More words per sentence wanted.
Discourse Markers: 4.03703703704 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186958948601 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.04846084721 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0737860832178 0.0701772020484 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105518301623 0.128457276422 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0544630079395 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 7.7 14.3799401198 54% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 66.74 48.3550499002 138% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 7.2 12.197005988 59% => Flesch kincaid grade is low.
coleman_liau_index: 9.5 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.52 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.2 11.1389221557 65% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.