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

The letter to editor of local news paper states that ways to save money on garbage disposal. For that the writer gives the example of a neighboring Town which decreased their garbage disposal costs by making compulsory for residents to recycle. This argument has many flaws which will be discussed below.

Firsty the author of the letter states that the neighboring town made it compulsory to recycle paper or else they were fined. While the author here suggests this town should run an add to recycle. According to me both of this initiatively are inherently different while the people of Hayesworth may unwilling had recycled the garbage fearing the fine. But the people of Masontown dont have that fear and may be unwilling to recycle the garbage. Hence the author's argument that this campaign will save money falls apart.

Secondly the author suggests people of Masontown should be encouraged to recycle waste by running an advertising campaign. This advertising campaign will cost money. Which may very well be more than that is saved from recycling the garbage. The writer here is inconspicious about the amount saved from recycling and the amount to be spent on advertising. So giving extra information about these costs will make authors argument strong.

Thridly comparing two town without baground information will be a mistake. As each town is different and has different attribures and characteristic. For example, recyclable products in Haynesworth are way more and hence decreasing them saved significant money for Hayestown. But mason town may not have that recyclable garbage hence recycling won't affect the overall garbage disposal much. Hence more information about these towns should be given by the author to make the argument compelling.

As sum the authors argument is unconvincing as it stands. And has many fkaws as given above.To strengthen the argument the author must give more information about the cost, town characteristics. And should also comment on the profitability of the venture.

Votes
Average: 6.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 31, Rule ID: NEWS_PAPER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'newspaper'? This word sequence is usually spelled together.
Suggestion: newspaper
The letter to editor of local news paper states that ways to save money on garba...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 127, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... recycle paper or else they were fined. While the author here suggests this town shou...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 179, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...thor here suggests this town should run an add to recycle. According to me both of thi...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 198, Rule ID: ACCORDING_TO_ME[1]
Message: This phrase can sound awkward in English. Consider using 'in my opinion' or 'I think'.
Suggestion: In my opinion; I think
...this town should run an add to recycle. According to me both of this initiatively are inherentl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...g the fine. But the people of Masontown dont have that fear and may be unwilling to ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 446, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ay be unwilling to recycle the garbage. Hence the authors argument that this campaign...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 456, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lling to recycle the garbage. Hence the authors argument that this campaign will save m...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 167, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Which” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s advertising campaign will cost money. Which may very well be more than that is save...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 392, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...fect the overall garbage disposal much. Hence more information about these towns shou...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hor to make the argument compelling. As sum the authors argument is unconvincin...
^^
Line 9, column 12, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... the argument compelling. As sum the authors argument is unconvincing as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 93, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...ands. And has many fkaws as given above.To strengthen the argument the author must...
^^
Line 9, column 140, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ngthen the argument the author must give more information about the cost, town ch...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for example

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1706.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 324.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26543209877 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24264068712 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77095183264 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484567901235 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 527.4 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.6713566165 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 81.2380952381 119.503703932 68% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.4285714286 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09523809524 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 13.0 5.25449101796 247% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.178578872793 0.218282227539 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0583841381153 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0473286702481 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109833253482 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0462063060522 0.0628817314937 73% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.99 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.

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: 21 15
No. of Words: 326 350
No. of Characters: 1668 1500
No. of Different Words: 159 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.249 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.117 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.701 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 114 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 87 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.524 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.011 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5