The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely.
The author of the argument contends that Tarquinia has a high rate of traffic accidents and thus some safety measures should be implemented by motivating drivers to drive safely. He or she cites as evidence to support his or her claims the fact that the neighboring countries have a much lower rate of traffic accidents and also in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. The reasoning of the argument is totally flawed as it is based upon unsubstantiated assumptions.
First and foremost, the arguer fails to establish an analogy between Tarquinia and its neighbors. We have no indication of the actual number of the rate for both Tarquinia and the neighboring countries and thus any attempt to assume them analogous is unconvincing. Perhaps, the other countries have severe driving rules and stricter regulation, or they could even have better and safer highways and driving infrastructure. The author should have presented more data and numbers for all the countries in order to accept the validity and effectiveness of his or her claims. In addition, the arguer quotes that one or more drivers are found to be at fault in the courts. We have no indication if these drivers are representative of the overall group of the people who drive in the country. These may be drunk or even worse those who do not own a driving license. The spokesperson should provide more details and information regarding the faulty drivers.
Second, when the author mentions that driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures should be abolished, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver’s heart, he or she wrongly assumes that such a measure would be rendered successful. Nothing ensures that the referred safety measures are easy to be abolished and also whether individuals are able to replace their cars with new ones. Moreover, even if we accept that drivers will replace their cars, it is unwarranted that people will not find a patent to remove the spike from the steering column that jeopardizes their life while driving. The evidence would be more credible in the case of more details and statistics regarding the will of the people to be compliant with the new law. Furthermore, the arguer too hastily concludes that the new measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia, as drivers will drive safely. The proposed measure is likely to have even worse results as drivers will be vulnerable and critically wounded by the spike in the steering column. Most important, it is uncertain that people will accept these new measures and that these will also sharpen their perception and consciousness while driving. The author needs to convince us with ample evidence about the validity and integrity of such a solution.
The argument is weak since neither is the conclusion sound, nor is the suggestion legitimate. Had there been substantial evidence, perhaps, the argument would have sounded more credible, but in its absence, it sounds indefensible.
Comments
better next time
better next time
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, thus, while, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 29.0 11.1786427146 259% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2570.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06903353057 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78755101393 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459566074951 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 805.5 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8624621948 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.380952381 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1428571429 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.315785400596 0.218282227539 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0919077236819 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0995067598842 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.193461213215 0.128457276422 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125420682643 0.0628817314937 199% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.