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.
In an editorial of a local newspaper, the editor cite one passage which emphasizes traffic problem to commuters. Furthermore, the editor gives different solution to this problem. He cites one claim made by commuters and also refutes it in subsequeancial statement. Another group of people is in favor of adding bicycle lane in highway to reduce traffic. Although,it has this explination regarding his point of view, I disprove this argument.
Initially, the author cites a point of view of commuters who are in favor of adding an additional lane to highway. This might reduce traffic, though commuters should give numerical data regarding how much traffic is happning today? How much traffic reduction occurs due to extra lane? Is there sufficient space available to build extra lane? This all aspects consider during the construction of extra lane. Commuters will reconstruct their claim by giving answer to this questions and by providing sufficient numerical data.
Second, the editor gives information about opponents of this argument. They reject a claim which was made by commuters and say that this kind of action might exacperate the traffic situation. So, they provide new point of view to add bicycle lane in highway which reduce traffic and encourage commuters to ride bicycle. Although, this point of view looks like cogent, it also has loopholes. Like, it is not indicating how addition of bicycle lane effect traffic situation? I ask this question, because it has not given information which indicates how commuters encourage to ride bicycle, despite rejection of their point of view? How they convince commuters to ride bicycle? Hence, the opponents should make more strong their claim by taking commuters in confidence.
At the end, the opponents cites that this extra bicycle lane reduce traffic problem. For this, he has not provided any numerical data which bolsters this claim. He has also not provided information of the types of traffic which give information about low load or high load vehicles which are responsible for traffic. If large weight vehicle are responsible for traffic, then construction of new bicycle lane has no effect on traffic and it ultimatily converts into waste of money, time and labor.
In conclusion, I just want to tell that if the author really wants to reduce the traffic problems, then first he should find reasons, because of which this kind of problem occur. He also tries to remove this reasons that leads to reduce in traffic problems.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 363, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , it
...e in highway to reduce traffic. Although,it has this explination regarding his poin...
^^^
Line 4, column 78, Rule ID: ADD_AN_ADDITIONAL[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'adding a lane'.
Suggestion: adding a lane
...f view of commuters who are in favor of adding an additional lane to highway. This might reduce traffic, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 467, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...nstruct their claim by giving answer to this questions and by providing sufficient n...
^^^^
Line 6, column 572, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'riding'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'encourage' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: riding
...which indicates how commuters encourage to ride bicycle, despite rejection of their poi...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'opponents'' or 'opponent's'?
Suggestion: opponents'; opponent's
...ters in confidence. At the end, the opponents cites that this extra bicycle lane redu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 259, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...at leads to reduce in traffic problems.
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'really', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'in conclusion', 'kind of']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.293598233996 0.25644967241 114% => OK
Verbs: 0.158940397351 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0551876379691 0.0836205057962 66% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0397350993377 0.0520304965353 76% => OK
Pronouns: 0.046357615894 0.0272364105082 170% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.12582781457 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0309050772627 0.0416121511921 74% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.66434276445 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0331125827815 0.026700313972 124% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0794701986755 0.113004496875 70% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0132450331126 0.0255425247493 52% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0331125827815 0.0127820249294 259% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2506.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 406.0 446.07635468 91% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1724137931 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.37684729064 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.285714285714 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206896551724 0.208842608468 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.152709359606 0.135150697306 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66434276445 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472906403941 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 51.1194522783 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 25.0 20.039408867 125% => OK
Sentence length: 16.24 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.1120250054 57.7814097925 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.24 141.986410481 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.24 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.52 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 44.8114285714 51.9672348444 86% => OK
Elegance: 1.83783783784 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.317316486965 0.441005458295 72% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138633305911 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0923395753936 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.479028982683 0.58762219726 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.137534995234 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120095291254 0.193483328276 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0761817587716 0.0970749176394 78% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.361937422885 0.42659136922 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0606766863247 0.0774707102158 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229559349593 0.312017818177 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0333692256526 0.0698173142475 48% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => 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.