The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper.
"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. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The letter to the editor suggests that adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway would be a good solution to reduce traffic jam and commuting time for the community. However, the argument is not quite sound because it lacks of evidences to support the idea suggested.
According to the letter, there are two proposals suggested to solve the problem: widen the highway with additional lane and adding the bicycle lane. The writer says that widening Blue Highway would not be helpful since Green Highway, which has been added a new lane, actually worsen the traffic jams. It assumed that two Highways are on the same situations, and share the same conditions over all. If not, the result of Blue Highway adding a new lane would not be the same with one of Green Highway. Without any specific details of Green Highway, it cannot assume that the solution suggested would not be helpful to decrease the traffic.
On top of that, it should have more specific information to support the alternative proposal adding a bicycle lane to the highway. How many people are willing to participate to commute by bicycle? Even though many residents like to ride a bicycle, it does not mean they are willing to use it to commute since using bicycle usually takes longer than using a car. Moreover, bicyclists also need to be educated to ride a bicycle on the highway since highway is the place vehicles drive very fast.
So far, it suggested that changing the highway would solve the problem of traffic jam during rush-hours. However, the traffic itself might have fundamental problems. For instance, there are too many lights on the high way, there are too many accidents on the highway, or there is not much public transportation from suburban to the city. Unless it finds out the fundamental problem on the highway, any proposals might not be useful solutions that ease the highway.
The letter presents the ideas to reduce the traffic jam during rush-hours, and commuting time: adding a new lane for vehicles or bicycles. The first proposal was discarded because it did not succeed in Green Highway. But there is no evidence to both highways share the same problem and condition. The idea of adding a new lane is not reliable because it does not guarantee that people use more bicycles. Over all, it only gives a few superficial solutions without concerning of any fundamental problems that cause the traffic jams. Therefore, the arguments need more specific information regarding Blue Highway before making decisions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 50, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggested solving'.
Suggestion: suggested solving
... to the letter, there are two proposals suggested to solve the problem: widen the highway with add...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'therefore', 'as to', 'for instance', 'on top of that']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.236051502146 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.171673819742 0.15541462614 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0858369098712 0.0836205057962 103% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0622317596567 0.0520304965353 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0278969957082 0.0272364105082 102% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0987124463519 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0407725321888 0.0416121511921 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.53627395807 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0407725321888 0.026700313972 153% => OK
Particles: 0.00214592274678 0.001811407834 118% => OK
Determiners: 0.122317596567 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.019313304721 0.0255425247493 76% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00858369098712 0.0127820249294 67% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2508.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 423.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.92907801418 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.354609929078 0.378187486979 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283687943262 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.189125295508 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.101654846336 0.135150697306 75% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53627395807 2.79052419416 91% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45390070922 0.469332199767 97% => OK
Word variations: 49.2610944324 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 20.1428571429 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.6105840652 57.7814097925 55% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.428571429 141.986410481 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1428571429 23.2022227129 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.619047619048 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 48.5116514691 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.43442622951 1.8405768891 78% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462923791597 0.441005458295 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.115398118966 0.135418324435 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.088390345122 0.0829849096947 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.577089437635 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12490200489 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.210908167553 0.193483328276 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0826623822059 0.0970749176394 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.43090982224 0.42659136922 101% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0949324521053 0.0774707102158 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.347101363863 0.312017818177 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0658418298856 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.