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 letter to the editor of the local newspaper in Masontown suggest that, to save money in garabage disposal, recyclcing of waste should be initiated. The author concludes that, by running an advertisement campanign, importance of the process can be reached to the crowd. The writer's contention might be true, but, there are three questions to be answered to assess the persuasiveness of the recommendation.
First of all, is the the case of Hayesworth comparable to that of Masontown? This might not be true, there might have been various factors that could have influenced the declining disposal rates. For instance, the population of Hayesworth might have been lesser, and this might be the reason for easier implementation of recycling process in the place. Perhaps, the residents of the locality were servile and subservient to the law and government, this might have led the people to follow the law without questions. Perhaps, the population of Masontown is too large to implement any law effectively. When population increases it becomes difficult for the governing body to carry out any reforms, because it is practically impossible to ensure adherence to the law among public. In addition, what if the people of Masontown were dissident towards any law imposed in the place, due to dissatisfaction on the present government. Therefore, there might have been a plethora of reasons for the success of recycling process in Hayesworth, comparing such circumstances of another place to Masontown is questionable. Hence, the author is required to provide elaborate data on the reasons for the big success of Hayesworth's waste disposal program.
Secondly, are advertisements having reforming impact on the public? Perhaps, this might not be true. Advertisements these days do not function as effectively as it used to be. For instance, the viewers of such promotional activity watch it as a mere form of entertainment and not awareness program. These days, no matter what the medium is, TV, mobile or internet, service providers give an option to skip advertisements. In such instances, the awareness program might not reach the targeted audience, thus losing money and eventually weaking the purpose of advertising the recycling process. Thus, it is not guaranteed that advertisements will ensure the public to follow the recycling process. It is of top priority of the writer to prove the efficieny of promoting the method by advertisement.
In conclusion, the writer must answer all the questions stated previously. Further, corroborating the answers with statistically backed data, will strengthen the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 413 350
No. of Characters: 2158 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.508 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.225 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.102 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.773 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.179 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.28 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.461 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 274, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...he process can be reached to the crowd. The writers contention might be true, but, ...
^^^
Line 1, column 278, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...rocess can be reached to the crowd. The writers contention might be true, but, there ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 18, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...e recommendation. First of all, is the the case of Hayesworth comparable to that o...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 18, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...e recommendation. First of all, is the the case of Hayesworth comparable to that o...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2224.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 413.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38498789346 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50803742585 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19506732781 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.525423728814 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 686.7 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.1557865434 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.090909091 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7727272727 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.54545454545 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.114686803406 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0349968786399 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0444879347157 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0576088771046 0.128457276422 45% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435679164891 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.