The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:
“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation
The author insinuates the encouragement of recycle in order to save money on garbage disposal. The claim of the author is bolstered by the comparison of a similar implementation in the neighboring town which produced favorable results. Although the recommendation of the author seems sagacious, there are crucial perspectives and key points which need to be considered in order to make the recommendation plausible.
First, the author assumes that increasing recycle would result into decrease in garbage disposal fees. Although the amount of garbage reduces due to recycle, there is no information to determine that the garbage disposal fees would be reduced. The author needs to provide information that could answer questions such as: How is the garbage disposal fees calculated? What kind of garbage significantly affects the disposal fees? Will the reduced quantity of garbage result into reduction of the fees?
Second, the author makes a direct comparison between two neighboring town and assumes that similar results would be produced. The author does mention an implementation of fine concerning the recycle of paper and glass in the contiguous town, However, no such implementation is mentioned for Masontown.
Will the encouragement of recycling be enough for the citizens to abate garbage? Without a vigorous implementation such as a fine the intended results to decrease garbage costs would be very difficult to achieve. What makes the author believe that a similar result would be produced if an identical implementation is made? The conditions, ideology and mindset of people, the garbage disposal agency, etc. might be different for both the towns. Hence, it would not be safe to expect a similar outcome without supporting information.
Furthermore, the author believes that encouraging the residents to recycle via an advertising campaign would help them save money on waste disposal. This is partially true; since the people would be encouraged to recycle, but it does not mean that the disposal cost would be diminished. The author provides no information about the plans to save money. What is the correlation between recycling and saving money? What plans does the author have in order to execute his recommendation?
Therefore, it can be concluded that the recommendation of the author, despite being beneficial for the environment as well as for the people of the province, does not consider critical perceptions. Perhaps, the author needs to supply enough information that could successfully answer the above raised questions.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
--------------------
argument 1 -- not OK. correct :
Maybe the significant decrease in garbage disposal costs is not due to recycling in Hayestown.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 398 350
No. of Characters: 2109 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.467 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.299 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.991 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.091 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.961 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, second, so, therefore, well, as for, kind of, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2167.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 398.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.44472361809 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46653527281 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06687599859 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467336683417 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 678.6 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.2660692193 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.2173913043 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3043478261 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.78260869565 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.136581609445 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539561473675 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0447717703698 0.0701772020484 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.079744582673 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0381728301236 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.98 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.