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."
In the letter from the local newspaper, it is stated that the author of the argument has an alternative solution to add bicycle lanes for mitigating the traffic jam instead of the proposed one by motorists, which is to make the highway wider. The author based on his proposed solution on two proves; the first, that when Green highway added a more lane, traffic jam had gotten worse than before. In addition, the residents of the surrounding areas are interested in riding bicycles. First of all, the author should provide more pieces of evidence for these two following concerns to evaluate if those recommendations will help in solving the problem or exacerbate it.
Firstly, the author depends on what had happened in the Green high- way would be the same for the blue highway. He assumes that two highways are the same, but they may be not similar at all. For example, Greenway could be located in an area closer to the city centre, so there is an overload in using this way as it services many crowded neighbourhoods around it. For this reason, the added lane didn’t have the desired effect in lessening the traffic. On the other hand, blue-way which perhaps exists in an area closer to a rustic territory where few populations, and thus few car users. [sr5] The example illustrates how the author’s evidence can be inaccurate. Moreover, the author states that issue happened last year, which is enough time for things to get change. For instance, in that mentioned time, probably that there were constructions in the other sub roads which service the same areas surround the Greenway. Thus, all motorists had to move to use this highway which was the only possible road for their work. What could probably don’t work for the Greenway not necessarily the same for the blue-way. If either of these scenarios has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.[sr7]
Secondly, the argument assumes that many of the surrounded areas’ residents will be urged to use this bike lane as soon as it is constructed. this is unguaranteed assumption to take it into account as evidence, because of what used to be as a hobby, not necessarily used as a transport mean for the work or school. [sr8] For example, if one is keen on riding the bike and interested in using it as a hobby for morning exercise; this hobby maybe been found unfeasible transporting mean to commute to the work due to the distance, which is perhaps so long, and exhausting.[sr9] Moreover, even if this distance isn’t long as makes it difficult as I imagined; the residents themselves could have another crucial reason not to be encouraged, which is the risk to ride a bike on a highway. The highways are renowned by its remarkable speed which may constitute dangerous on the bike riders’ life. Therefore, even if some take that risk; the number of bike lane’s users will not be in the extent to which can solve the traffic jam Thus, If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed, because of its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions as evidence.[sr11] If the author is able to provide more evidence probably in the form of (systematic research study), then it will be plausible to evaluate the argument effectively whether to add a bike lane to the blue-highway or not.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 582 350
No. of Characters: 2703 1500
No. of Different Words: 268 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.912 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.644 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.651 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.857 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.375 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 343, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e first, that when Green highway added a more lane, traffic jam had gotten worse ...
^^
Line 2, column 1232, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...argument is significantly weakened.[sr7] Secondly, the argument assumes that many...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 143, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: This
...bike lane as soon as it is constructed. this is unguaranteed assumption to take it i...
^^^^
Line 4, column 576, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...is perhaps so long, and exhausting.[sr9] Moreover, even if this distance isn’t lo...
^^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...warranted assumptions as evidence.[sr11] If the author is able to provide more ev...
^^
Line 5, column 246, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n the form of systematic research study, then it will be plausible to evaluate th...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2802.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 579.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 4.83937823834 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90534594407 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77166720907 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490500863558 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 880.2 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 99.7676801374 57.8364921388 172% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.1 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.95 23.324526521 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.55 5.70786347227 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0903886406284 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0307912025959 0.0743258471296 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0263287232897 0.0701772020484 38% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0568638322396 0.128457276422 44% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0260597447671 0.0628817314937 41% => 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: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.38 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => 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.