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

Essay topics:

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 editorial in a local newspaper which indicates that adding a bicycle lane will reduce rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway provides interesting clues, but to move forward on the conclusion would definitely require more information and thought. Moreover, the argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus, not strong enough to lead to the conclusion.

To begin with, base on the fact that the traffic jams on Green Highway became worse when a lane was added to the nearby Green Highway last year, the author of the argument implies that additional lane of traffic is inefficient in reducing commuting time at rush hour on Blue Highway. However, he/she fails to justify this reason. In other words, are the situation of two highways similar? For example, if adding a new lane nearby the Highway is a superior method to decline rush-hour traffic. Nevertheless, number of emigrants who moved to the city center of Green Highway increased significantly last year. And the increase of emigrants caused an inferior impact on Green Highway’s traffic jams, even though a new lane was constructed. However, there was not a significant change in the number of commuters on Blue Highway last year. Therefore, maybe adding a new lane to the nearby Blue Highway can improve the traffic jams problem on the highway. Overall, without any specific details of Green Highway, it cannot assume that the solution suggested would not be helpful to decrease the traffic.

Additionally, the argument implies that adding a bicycle lane will encourage commuters to use bicycles and the addition will decline rush-hour traffic. It is not convincing, however, the suggestion of the editorial. I mean why does a bicycle lane encourage area residents who are keen bicyclists using bicycles to commute? For instance, area residents love using bicycles for exercise not to commute. Therefore, constructing a new bicycle lane can be a big mistake. Because, not only it does not encourage area residents to commute by bicycle, but also it wastes a lot of money. To conclude, the suggestion of the opponents does not show a connection between love riding bicycle and using bicycle to commute.

In conclusion, this argument is neither apparent nor convincing since it leaves out several angles and factors. I strongly believe that if the argument included the factors discussed above, the argument would have been more plausible and convincing.

Average: 5 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'for instance', 'i mean', 'in conclusion', 'in other words', 'to begin with']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.268623024831 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.151241534989 0.15541462614 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0880361173815 0.0836205057962 105% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0609480812641 0.0520304965353 117% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0180586907449 0.0272364105082 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0993227990971 0.125424944231 79% => OK
Participles: 0.0316027088036 0.0416121511921 76% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79139847005 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0361173814898 0.026700313972 135% => OK
Particles: 0.00225733634312 0.001811407834 125% => OK
Determiners: 0.106094808126 0.113004496875 94% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.020316027088 0.0255425247493 80% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0112866817156 0.0127820249294 88% => OK

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2434.0 2731.13054187 89% => OK
No of words: 393.0 446.07635468 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.19338422392 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.41475826972 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.335877862595 0.287650121315 117% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.241730279898 0.208842608468 116% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.132315521628 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79139847005 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 207.018472906 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.503816793893 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 54.9885372721 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 19.65 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2203477399 57.7814097925 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.7 141.986410481 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.65 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 53.2377862595 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.73529411765 1.8405768891 94% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.52693324165 0.441005458295 119% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.108550143837 0.135418324435 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0897186141213 0.0829849096947 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.528869420291 0.58762219726 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.173432913855 0.147661913831 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.196388995177 0.193483328276 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.125920869397 0.0970749176394 130% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.29976518884 0.42659136922 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.109419167556 0.0774707102158 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.336819611156 0.312017818177 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.121655574419 0.0698173142475 174% => OK

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.