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.
In the letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown, the author suggests starting an advertising campaign to encourage residents to recycle more in order to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees. The author reaches this conclusion by citing that a similar law was passed in Hayesworth, a neighboring town, and it worked. However, before the author's recommendation can be properly evaluated three questions must be answered.
First, Are Masontown and Hayesworth similar or the same? The author prematurely assumes what works for Hayesworth will also work for Masontown. While this may be true, we just can't say for sure. It is possible that while Hayesworth residents are willing to obey the recycling law, residents of Masontown are anti-recycling. If this is true, then the author's stance is weakened.
Secondly, what is the medium of the advertising campaigns? In Hayesworth, a law was passed, but here, the author isn't suggesting a law be passed. He/she is relying on advertising campaigns to convince residents of Masontown to start recycling, but doesn't state the media to use. What if Masontown decides to use radio or newspapers for the advertisement campaign and the residents rarely listen to radio and read newspaper? If the form of media chosen fails to reach the majority of the people of Masontown, then the author's recommendation is seriously undermined.
Thirdly, what is the current average garbage disposal fee in Masontown? The author indirectly compares the garbage disposal fee to that of Hayesworth. Perhaps, the disposal fee in Masontown is way lower than that of Hayesworth, so residents only pay a little fee. Therefore, introducing recycling will have little to no effects.
Lastly, what is the willingness of Masontown residents to start recycling? Since, the author doesn't suggest passing a law; the residents might not take recycling seriously. Even if a law was passed, the author wrongly assumes the residents will not be willing to pay fines. For all we know, they may be anti-recycling and decide to pay fines instead of obeying the law.
In conclusion, the author's argument, as it stands, is deeply flawed as it is based on several unwarranted assumptions. For analyze the viability of this recommendation, the author needs to provide detailed answers to the above questions and maybe provide additional details in the form of a systematic study of residents in the town.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1980 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.987 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.932 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.2 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 360, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...own, and it worked. However, before the authors recommendation can be properly evaluate...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 177, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...ontown. While this may be true, we just cant say for sure. It is possible that while...
^^^^
Line 3, column 351, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ti-recycling. If this is true, then the authors stance is weakened. Secondly, what i...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 114, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
... a law was passed, but here, the author isnt suggesting a law be passed. He/she is r...
^^^^
Line 5, column 249, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ts of Masontown to start recycling, but doesnt state the media to use. What if Masonto...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 518, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ty of the people of Masontown, then the authors recommendation is seriously undermined....
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 94, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...s to start recycling? Since, the author doesnt suggest passing a law; the residents mi...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...obeying the law. In conclusion, the authors argument, as it stands, is deeply flawe...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2047.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20865139949 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01600467677 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496183206107 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 629.1 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => 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: 43.686934021 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0869565217 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.17391304348 5.70786347227 91% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.280833599869 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0861136533754 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0763111644692 0.0701772020484 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152863283071 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0748866050868 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.