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 argument that creating a bicycle lane on Blue Hghway to reduce rush-hour traffic makes a number of unwarranted assumptions regarding the new lane encouraging commuters to use bicylces, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic. Taken as whole, these unstated assumptions render the argument highly suspect. Indeed, if these unstated assumptions do not hold true, the argument totally falls apart.
Firstly, the author assumes that because the addition of a new lane to Green highway caused an increase in traffic jams, addition of a new lane on Blue highway will also cause an increase in rush hour traffic. This argument is flawed because both highways are different and they are situated in different locations. Green highway might be situated in an industrial area or a very busy part of the town and Blue highway might be situated in a small part of the town. For this argument to be valid, the author needs to look at other circumstances that might have led to green’s highway causing more traffic jams after the addition of the lane and compare these circumstances to that of blue highway to determine if the adition of a new lane will lead to increase rush hour or not.
Secondly, the author assumes that adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway will encourage the commuters to use bicycle because the residents are keen bicyclist. This argument is seriously flawed there is no evidence to show that the residents use bicycle during these rush hours. They might prefer using bicylces on weekends for leisurely stroll around town. Also, they might prefer riding cars to and from work, thereby still leading to an increased rush-hour traffic. For this argument to be strengthened, the author needs to provide evidence showing the period of time the residents ride bicycle most. If this evidence is shown and it is observed that the residents actually ride bicycle most during rush hours, then the argument is valid. If not, the argument is flawed
Another leap in the argument is that the author assumed bicycle usage will reduce rush hour traffic. The reverse might be the case as bicycle usage might even increase rush-hour traffic because the use of bicycles will be increased and this might lead to more traffic jam. Also, increase in bicycle use might lead to more people using bicycles, thereby leading to more bicycles on the highway. For this argument to be strengthed, the author needs to provide evidence showing increase in bicycle usage will lead to decrease in rush hour traffic as this evidence will help determine the validity of this idea.
In conclusion, the argument that creating a bicycle lane on Blue Hghway to reduce rush-hour traffic makes numerous unstated assumptions that seriously undermines its validity. Unless these assumptions are addressed, the argument totally falls apart. Thus, adding a bicycle lane to Blue highway might lead to an increase in rush-hour traffic rather than decreasing it.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 484 350
No. of Characters: 2397 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.69 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.952 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.479 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 183 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 151 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.829 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.389 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 435, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[5]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'increased rush-hour traffic'.
Suggestion: increased rush-hour traffic
...and from work, thereby still leading to an increased rush-hour traffic. For this argument to be strengthened, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 554, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...r needs to provide evidence showing the period of time the residents ride bicycle most. If thi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, if, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2446.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05371900826 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5305287146 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 176.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.363636363636 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 767.7 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2548495835 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.3 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.169477155206 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0671294498432 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0546483224906 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118656243672 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0207923814373 0.0628817314937 33% => 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: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.31 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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.