Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic, increasing the commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown. The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving one's car downtown, Downtown traffic almost immediately subsided in Loft and the local government also raised much-needed money for fixing the roads elsewhere. obviously, this plan should be implemented in Zurzi in order to solve the brewing traffic congestion problem.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic and planning to apply a plan implemented in the nearby city of loft to subsidies the traffic in the area. The plan suggests applying a small weekly tax for driving one’s car downtown. Hence, in that case they need to have some alternative transport to it. But the question is whether the downtown Zurzi planned for it or not and what other measures are undertaken by city of Loft to subsidies the traffic the Zurzi needs to consider them as well.
At the same time Downtown Zurzi can also plan for some underpass or over-bridge to divert the traffic which is just passing through the Downtown streets to reach some distant point. If possible (or it is not already present) Zurzi can also plan for broad roads like six lane roads which confine the traffic of pedestrian to foot paths, traffic of buses to BRTS lanes and other vehicles on remaining lanes reducing the traffic on one single road.
Zurzi can also plan to implement the odd-even policy used by various countries to reduce the traffic and pollution level. Further, Zurzi can also plan to increase its metro train and city- bus (if less) to reduce the traffic of this area and can promote the use of public transport among the people. Additionally, Zurzi can also plan for underground or roof-top parking if the congestion of traffic is mostly caused by parked vehicles on the road in the Downtown.
In addition to it, Zurzi can also plan for variable time-system which suggests that heavy vehicles are allowed at certain times only like in early morning and late night not during the time of peak hours of the traffic. And in that case Zurzi also need to plan a certain other by-pass for heavy vehicles in the day time. People can also be encouraged to share the vehicles by doing creative promotion of sharing vehicle which also reduces the essential fuel for their future generations.
Besides, as we can see there is no particular and much information provided about the two cities which minimize the chances of comparison of the two. As the proverb suggests that one’s man food can be the poison for another (in case of lack of information about the second man). Hence, what is easy to apply (like weekly tax) in Loft may not be easy to apply in the Zurzi. What is the population difference of the two cities? Again, what is the difference between the varieties of traffic of two cities? If the comparison can be made between the two towns when one is industrial and other is rural differentiating the mindset of the people of such different localities.
Therefore, applying this plan of weekly taxation in Zurzi is not that obvious and need to be considered again. Because there is lot many things which needed to be taken care before such as planning for alternative vehicles if the Zurzi apply taxation on private vehicles or cars. And in case of comparison between the two downtowns probably the statement shows lack of information and Zurzi need to consider the various points some of which are mentioned above according to its environment and locality.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 536 350
No. of Characters: 2507 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.812 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.677 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.483 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.348 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.596 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.148 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, hence, if, may, second, so, therefore, well, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 84.0 55.5748502994 151% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2574.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 536.0 441.139720559 122% => OK
Chars per words: 4.80223880597 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53979246762 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440298507463 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 807.3 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9473161999 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.571428571 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5238095238 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.04761904762 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255570244494 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934578929757 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876833539557 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.153602844098 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0986116546004 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.86 12.5979740519 86% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.