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 article concludes that the addition of a bicycle lane on the Blue highway will reduce the traffic rush problem of the commuters and would encourage people to use a bicycle to commute. The article further, bolsters its claim by providing an example of Green Highway where the traffic condition worsened on the addition of a new lane. Though the proposal seems convincing at first, as it will lead to fewer vehicles on the road and encourage a greener way of commuting, but when considered closely the plan is rift with assumptions for which no substantial proof has been furnished.
The first evidence which would help us evaluate the article’s claim is the comparison between the nature of commuters of Green Highway and Blue Highway. The article needs to provide us with reasons as to why there was an increase in commuters on Green Highway and will a similar condition prevail on Blue highway after the construction of a new lane. There is a possibility that the two highways are entirely different in their characteristics. For example, the roads in and around Green Highway might be closed or blocked as they are undergoing maintenance. This situation has led the traffic being directed through Green Highway; therefore resulting in more traffic. This a temporary situation and things are to go normal in a few months. If this is the case, the article reliance on Green Highway example is not warranted and the plan needs a reconsideration.
Another major evidence that is essential for the evaluation of the plan is the information regarding the willingness of the commuters to switch to bicycles as their’s mode of transport. The article assumes that as the residents are keen on bicycling, they will have no issue in changing their mode of transport. The people may prefer bicycling as a form of exercise or refreshing themselves but not as a transport to travel to the office. Further, if we were to learn that residents need to travel several kilometers to get to their place of work. They will be reluctant is considering a bicycle as a replacement for cars. Moreover, if the weather conditions in the area are not suitable for bicyclists,say, the area gets frequent rain or records very sunny days. If this is the case, the article’s claim would certainly be weakened. The people might oppose the entire plan and will raise more complaints. The situation might get exacerbated by the implementation of the plan. It would be beneficial if the planning committee surveys all the commuters to get an opinion regarding the proposed change.
It is also essential to know the meaning or the range of the word “many area residents” in evaluating the plan. The word is vaguely used and the article fails to provide any substantial evidence as to what percentage or ratio of people are keen bicyclist. For example, there might be five hundred people out of ten thousand people who are keen bicyclist. The small sample can not be generalized for the entire population. To strengthen the claim it is of utmost importance for the article to furnish us the statistical details representing a proper figure as to how many people were considered as keen bicyclists when the whole population is taken.
To sum up, the plan to construct a bicycle lane may have its merit but the evidences provided in the argument fails to make a solid case. Thereby rendering it too weak to be implemented at this point. The argument needs to provide us with information regarding people’s acceptance of the proposal and the real cause of increased traffic at Green Highway. The argument moreover needs to be more articulate in describing the keen bicyclist. Without answers to these questions, the article’s plan does not seem to be a full-proof.
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: 30 15
No. of Words: 634 350
No. of Characters: 3046 1500
No. of Different Words: 277 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.018 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.804 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.768 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 184 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.281 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.633 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.308 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 2 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 160, Rule ID: YOUR_S[1]
Message: Did you mean 'their' or 'theirs'?
Suggestion: their; theirs
... the commuters to switch to bicycles as their’s mode of transport. The article assumes ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 403, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'transport'.
Suggestion: transport
...ise or refreshing themselves but not as a transport to travel to the office. Further, if we...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 703, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma
Suggestion: , say
...the area are not suitable for bicyclists,say, the area gets frequent rain or records...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, as to, for example, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3117.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 633.0 441.139720559 143% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92417061611 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01592376844 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8926790045 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 280.0 204.123752495 137% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44233807267 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 973.8 705.55239521 138% => 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: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.694397528 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.9 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.26666666667 5.70786347227 57% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.120663505057 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0344726231516 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0479652815298 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0743746905536 0.128457276422 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0553820486387 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 143.0 98.500998004 145% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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.