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 in this argument citing complaints gathered from the "commuters", negates the proposed solution by Motorists' lobby and recommends that the better solution is to add a bicycle lane by supporting using many residents are keen bicyclists and concluding this would reduce rush-hour traffic.
There is no specific evidence which tells us about validness and depth of the commuters which complained. The number of commuters which complained, it could be a small loud minority which complained or a large minority. It also depends if the commuters were asked about their opinion randomly, if the only people who gave their opinions were angry this would make the statement biased and misleading. The evidence provided could weaken the argument that the rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. This would also lead to not going with the recommendation mentioned by the author.
In the next sentence, the author does not specify which highway does the lobby wants to widen, if they are saying that Green Highway and Blue Highway should be widen than this strengthens the author's argument and makes their proposed recommendation more compelling. If they only said that the highway which is to be widen is Blue Highway, then this weakens the author's argument as widening Blue Highway could be much more impactful than widening Green Highway. The argument does not also specify by what amount the Green Highway was widened, if it was a substantial amount than it would support the author's argument and strengthen their proposed recommendation, but if it wasn't a substantial amount than it would weaken the author's argument and disregard that their solution is better.
Evidently we are not given how many of residents are actually keen bicyclists. Many could even mean a small minority and many could also mean a large proportion of the population. If it is a small minority, then this leads to the proposed solution not being viable as only a few people will use the lane and there will still be traffic congestion. If many people implies that a lage sum of people, this could strengthen author's argument if those people use the lane. This is important as people who are keen bicyclists might not use bicycles for commuting most of the time, if there is an evidence which tells that the commute distances are very long, then even the supposedly large proportion of bicyclists will not use the lane and there would be no difference in traffic. The assumption is also that the lane will be built not reduce the highway's area, if any evidence suggests that it is to be the case for Blue Highway, this could weaken the author's argument as though their might be some bicyclist travelling on the lane, the vehicles would have to go through even narrower road.
There are several evidence pieces needed which in most instance could weaken the author's argument. The recommendation which the author makes is not significantly persuasive enough to build a bicycle lane on a highway.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 510 350
No. of Characters: 2502 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.752 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.906 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.568 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 165 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.681 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.157 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 80, Rule ID: DOES_NP_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'want'?
Suggestion: want
...ot specify which highway does the lobby wants to widen, if they are saying that Green...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 161, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'widened'?
Suggestion: widened
...reen Highway and Blue Highway should be widen than this strengthens the authors argum...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 193, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ould be widen than this strengthens the authors argument and makes their proposed recom...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... is Blue Highway, then this weakens the authors argument as widening Blue Highway could...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 600, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...antial amount than it would support the authors argument and strengthen their proposed ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 673, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wasn't
...heir proposed recommendation, but if it wasnt a substantial amount than it would weak...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 725, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tantial amount than it would weaken the authors argument and disregard that their solut...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 616, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...f there is an evidence which tells that the commute distances are very long, then even the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 842, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'highways'' or 'highway's'?
Suggestion: highways'; highway's
...t the lane will be built not reduce the highways area, if any evidence suggests that it ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 948, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...for Blue Highway, this could weaken the authors argument as though their might be some ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...which in most instance could weaken the authors argument. The recommendation which the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, so, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2554.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 509.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01768172888 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71462014652 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402750491159 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 780.3 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 86.9824386683 57.8364921388 150% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.235294118 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.9411764706 23.324526521 128% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.35294117647 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194765599509 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0768918317408 0.0743258471296 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106004732362 0.0701772020484 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120183984551 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0793780667762 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.5 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.43 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.