The following appeared in a letter to the editor of 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. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
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.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that the traffic jam run people into a huge problem in blue highway and people could not get to their destination in time, so, a new bicycles' lane should be added to the highway in order to diminish rush-hour traffic. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which more well-established evidence should be given.
First, the author contends that according to motorists' proposal, increase width of highway and additional lane could reduce the traffic jam. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since, there is no sufficient evidence to support if extra lane is a suitable plan and is able to decrease traffic hour. One point that should be considered is that all highways in the world have built based on specific plan and situation. So, there is possibility that location of blue highway does not have capacity for extra lane. Indeed, maybe blue highway is restricted by different building and there is not any empty space. It is also important to say that, perhaps motorist have proposed for their own comfort due to the fact that it will ease their commuting.
The author also attributes that last year's Green highway added extra lane to the highway but the traffic jam had increased significantly and it worsened the situation. Although it might seems tenable at face, it has some defects. Due to the paucity of evidence, that would consolidate the premise the otherwise. One of the main, if not the only problem with premise is that there are majorities of highway that are main roads in every nation and there is possibility that most of the population had used from Green highway during past years. In fact, maybe Green highway located in a good place and many motorists had preferred to use this highway. Alongside that, perhaps width of green highway was twice as much as blue highway and extra lane could be added on it.
Finally, as set forth by the author bicycle lane could contribute greatly to the reduction of traffic owing to the fact that myriads of residents are bicyclists. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an inadequate evidence to support if a large number of people will use bicycle in order to commute to their destination. One point that should not go unnoticed is that the author does not provide any information about percentage of bicyclists. Indeed, maybe few people prefer to get to their destination by bicycle due to the fact that it will get more time rather than car. Moreover, additional bicycle lane next to the motorists will not be safe and there is possibility that they cause accidents on the road, which add more to the traffic.
Having scrutinized the premises. A logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some evidence, having been ignored by the author while the presence of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 184, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'bicycle'?
Suggestion: bicycle
...to their destination in time, so, a new bicycles apos; lane should be added to the highw...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 277, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...to an inadequate evidence to support if a large number of people will use bicycle in order to com...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 207, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, while, in fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2453.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 507.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8382642998 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74517233601 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53273485124 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455621301775 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.4914972027 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.5 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0454545455 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22727272727 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.176681978237 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0501514824627 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052320852758 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0973801362428 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578930285548 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.09 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: 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.