Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic, increasing 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 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.
We learn in the above argument that a town, Zurzi, is confronted with a traffic problem, and we learn how another town, Loft, dealt with this problem. We are asked to subscribe to the notion that since Loft’s efforts to curtail traffic were effective, Zurzi should enact similar measures. In order to better evaluate this argument, additional evidence is needed, falling generally into the categories of whether Loft’s efforts were indeed effective, and, even if this is the case, whether there is reason to believe that Zurzi will enjoy similar success were it to follow suit.
Were Loft’s efforts effective? To answer this question we would need to know more about the side effects of its actions. There are several possible negative side effects that could have occurred as a result of Loft’s implementing a tax on cars that enter the downtown area. For example, if traffic is suddenly avoiding that area because of the tax, where is it going? Are people simply driving less, or have they merely moved to another part of town? Evidence showing that traffic is simply bypassing that area and congesting another part of town would weaken the argument. Additionally, we may want to know who this tax is most affecting. In many cities, people who live on the outskirts of town are less able to afford the more expensive real estate in the city center. They then drive to work downtown. If this is the case in Loft, then the tax may be putting financial strain on those who cannot afford it, but have no other choice. If we were to find evidence that this was the case, this would weaken the argument that Zurzi should enact a similar plan. Finally, another important side effect of the tax may be the impact on local business owners. If suddenly traffic downtown is drastically curtailed, local business owners may find themselves with a precipitous decline in business. Evidence to this effect would serve to undermine the original statement.
We turn next to the second big assumption of the prompt, which is that Zurzi should do as Loft does. Suppose we find evidence that Loft’s measures were indeed successful—that traffic patterns aren’t harmfully disrupted, that the tax isn’t too great a financial burden, and that business owners are enjoying, say, an increasing influx of pedestrian clientele. Does this imply that Zurzi should necessarily do in kind? Not until we have evidence that Zurzi’s situation is comparable to Loft’s. For example, we would need to know whether Zurzi’s driving population is the same, both geographically and financially, as Loft’s. Just because Loft’s drivers can afford to pay that tax doesn’t mean that Zurzi’s can—we need more information to confirm that this the case. Additionally, as with Loft, we would need evidence indicating that businesses are subject to similar conditions. Evidence to this effect—namely, evidence indicating that Zurzi faces conditions similar to Loft—would strengthen, and indeed are necessary to the logical thrust of, the argument.
In summary, we see two main pillars of evidence that would need to be established in order to better evaluate the argument. First, we’d need evidence that Loft’s efforts were successful. Second, we’d need evidence that Zurzi is like Loft. With such confirming evidence, the argument begins to cohere. Without it, the argument is bereft of critical foundations.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK.
better to say:
1. maybe other reasons caused the decline in commuting time too.
2. maybe it worked only several years ago, not nowadays.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- ??? minimum 3 arguments wanted.
----------------
flaws:
every argument should not be too long.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 563 350
No. of Characters: 2735 1500
No. of Different Words: 242 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.871 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.858 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.466 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 203 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.107 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.953 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.443 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.186 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, second, so, then, for example, in summary, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 30.0 13.6137724551 220% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 59.0 28.8173652695 205% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2910.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 554.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25270758123 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85151570047 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84447212108 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467509025271 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 900.0 705.55239521 128% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.0948014258 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4666666667 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.8 5.70786347227 49% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.174266621768 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0548486258129 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0439539141948 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107639164848 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0449125611897 0.0628817314937 71% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.09 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.