In the author's article there are some loopholes that do not support his story completely. Though there is increase in the population during summer the reason for accidents are not clearly mentioned and many other similar factors need to be accounted before accepting the claim.
Firstly the reason for the accidents is not mentioned as there can be several cause for a mishap. Like bad roads, traffic violation, congested roads, no separate path for pedestrians, etc. There can be chances of accident due to negligence for pedestrians too. And the reason for the sudden increase of population during summer is also not mentioned, hypothetically there maybe a racing event in the island, maybe a marathon or any other sport, which could lead to accident between the mopeds and pedestrians.
Another problem with the author's statement is that the town council is sure to attain 50 percent reduction in accidents by reducing the vehicle rentals from 50 to 25, this in now possible way true decreasing the number of mopeds will increase the number of pedestrians which will still lead to mishaps unless very disaster is caused by the moped riders. Since the reason for the accidents are not mentioned this statement cannot be accepted, as there maybe other reason accidents can still continue.
The Balmer Island wants to simulate the policy of Seaville's town council but they failed to mention what other measures they undertook to reduce accidents and also the state to traffic and population in Seaville's. They could have widened the road, they could have made a separate road for riders and pedestrians, this is expressed in the author's article.
To conclude this argument, the writer's argument is naive and weak as he fails to mention the remaining facts in regard to the cause of accidents mainly and also the cause of population increase, implementing the rule because the neighbouring town did the same. With all the above facts represented it agreeable that the author fails to make an impact with his statements
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 10 15
No. of Words: 335 350
No. of Characters: 1662 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.278 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.961 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.582 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 16.002 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.715 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 71, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun cause seems to be countable; consider using: 'several causes'.
Suggestion: several causes
...idents is not mentioned as there can be several cause for a mishap. Like bad roads, traffic v...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 26, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... pedestrians. Another problem with the authors statement is that the town council is s...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 32, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...rticle. To conclude this argument, the writers argument is naive and weak as he fails ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, may, so, still, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 335.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03582089552 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27820116611 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.624768498 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 171.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.510447761194 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 523.8 705.55239521 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 83.1803595942 57.8364921388 144% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.583333333 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.9166666667 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.58333333333 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.152158499736 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0544528880294 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570870940805 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0833801583448 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0290123264298 0.0628817314937 46% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.65 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.