The author proposes to implement an advertising campaign encouraging the residents of Masontown to recycle. He cites the example of their neighbouring town, Hayesworth, which passed a law late last year requiring all households to recycle paper and glass, otherwise pay a fine. Hayesworth has since seen a decline in its garbage disposal costs. However, the author's proposition stands unpersuasive based on several unanswered questions.
First, considering that Hayesworth's passing of the law was in direct relation to a decline in garbage and consequently resulted in a decline of the disposal costs, the author fails to answer the question of how much garbage of Masontown is contributed by paper and glass, both of which can be recycled. If the majority of Masontown garbage comprises of glass and paper then it stands justified to encourage recycling of such components. However, if garbage mostly comprises of pharmaceutical wastes or other biodegradable wastes, then such a plan of action is not likely to yield significant decrease in the municipal garbage disposal fees. From a broader perspective, how much similar are municipal garbages of Masontown and Hayesworth needs to be answered to compare whether the law passed in Hayesworth would be similarly beneficial to Masontown.
Second, the passage of the law by Hayesworth authorities doesn't necessarily mean that its residents are actually following the law. What might happen is that the fine imposed might counteract the effects of the increasing disposal costs and hence Hayesworth's net garbage disposal costs have gone down since passage of the law. A question that needs to be answered in this respect is whether the majority of the neighboring town actually abides by the law. Unless such adherence to the law is evidenced, the campaign of encouraging the residents of Masontown might not be effective in changing their behavior.
Furthermore, the law was passed by Hayesworth is late last year. Considering that not much time has passed since the law was actually passed, the assertion that Hayesworth has seen a decline in its garbage disposal costs stands on weak ground. Such a change might be transient in that because the law is comparatively new, people are more inclined towards abiding it but in the long run the law might not prove to be so much enforced in the town so as to bring about substantial results. Also, how does the law directly result in a change in people's behavior and leads to a decrease in the garbage disposal costs is nowhere establised. It might be that the Hayesworth authorities have invested in a new machine which reduces the costs effectively. Unless a direct relation is found out, the authenticity of the author's claims stands unpersuasive.
In conclusion, it may be true that the law passed in Hayesworth has directly resulted in recycling of paper and glass and has led to a significant decline in its garbage disposal costs. It may also be true that similar campaigns in Masontown, encouraging its residents to recycle would enable it to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees. However, as it stands now, questions pertaining to how much similar are municipal garbage wastes of Hayesworth and Masontown in terms of paper and glass, whether the law is actually abided by the residents of Hayesworth, and whether the observations are credible enough given the short span of time that has passed since the law was passed, needs to be answered. Furthermore, how the law directly resulted in reduction of municipal wastes also needs to be ascertained in order to evaluate the author's proposition of organizing advertising campaigns to encourgae the citizens of Masontown to recycle.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 602 350
No. of Characters: 3047 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.953 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.061 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.915 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 230 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 191 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 143 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 95 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.705 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.543 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.114 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 341, Rule ID: COMPRISES_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprises' or 'consists of'?
Suggestion: comprises; consists of
...d. If the majority of Masontown garbage comprises of glass and paper then it stands justifie...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: COMPRISES_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'comprises' or 'consists of'?
Suggestion: comprises; consists of
... components. However, if garbage mostly comprises of pharmaceutical wastes or other biodegra...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 58, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ge of the law by Hayesworth authorities doesnt necessarily mean that its residents are...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 447, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...rove to be so much enforced in the town so as to bring about substantial results. Also, ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, second, similarly, so, then, as to, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 94.0 55.5748502994 169% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3104.0 2260.96107784 137% => OK
No of words: 601.0 441.139720559 136% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16472545757 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95129289623 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95657349837 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.384359400998 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 966.6 705.55239521 137% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.8852534907 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.090909091 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.3181818182 23.324526521 117% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86363636364 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.228228780306 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0885685583912 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0538197675564 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157015283318 0.128457276422 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348398360776 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.