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 editor of local newspaper in Masontown wrote in a letter that to decrease the money spent on municipal garbage disposal fees, the residents should be encouraged to recycle more and provides example of a neighbouring town that they passed a law to make the residents recycle paper and glass at home or the residents will need to pay a fine and this significantly decreased their disposal costs. So doing some advertisement to encourage the resident of Masontown would help them save money. The editor fails to provide reasonable evidences to support the claim and there are greater chances that the prediction results in totally opposite. In my opinion, the claim can be bolstered by providing the two evidences as described below.
The editor of local newspaper in Masontown wrote in a letter that to decrease the money spent on municipal garbage disposal fees, the residents should be encouraged to recycle more and provides example of a neighbouring town that they passed a law to make the residents recycle paper and glass at home or the residents will need to pay a fine and this significantly decreased their disposal costs. So doing some advertisement to encourage the resident of Masontown would help them save money. The editor fails to provide reasonable evidences to support the claim and there are greater chances that the prediction results in totally opposite. In my opinion, the claim can be bolstered by providing the two evidences as described below.
Secondly, there are no evidences given of the number of residents of Masontown compared to Hayesworth. As the passing of law in Hayesworth decreased their disposal cost could only have been possible because the population there is scanty and contains more household than industries or factories whereas it is the opposite in Masontown. Hereby, the editor should clearly mention the area type of the towns as this would greatly affect the disposal rates as in a town the disposal are mostly household product but what if the town has industries or more corporate sectors then the disposal items would be totally different from the household disposal items and would advance the costs of disposal. Therefore, if justified with evidence this argument will become fully reliable to be implemented.
Lastly, the arguments presented by the editor are ill-founded and lacks major evidences and can be inferred that is totally dependent on assumptions. But if the editor is successful in providing the evidences of the disposal products and how similar the towns are to each other then the argument could be bolstered and hence be applied to reduce the disposal rates of garbage.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 14 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2184 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.021 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.724 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 31.071 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 19.681 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.375 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.081 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 571, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...as industries or more corporate sectors then the disposal items would be totally dif...
^^^^
Line 7, column 273, Rule ID: OTHER_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'other than'?
Suggestion: other than
...s and how similar the towns are to each other then the argument could be bolstered and hen...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 279, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'? 'than' is used for comparisons, 'then' is an expression of time.
Suggestion: than
...how similar the towns are to each other then the argument could be bolstered and hen...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, hence, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, whereas, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2218.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09885057471 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76878777766 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.374712643678 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 715.5 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 31.0 22.8473053892 136% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 112.276194616 57.8364921388 194% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.428571429 119.503703932 133% => OK
Words per sentence: 31.0714285714 23.324526521 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07142857143 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272760295669 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0997345551427 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104188829135 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1928830246 0.128457276422 150% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0904659532276 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.1 14.3799401198 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.01 48.3550499002 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.4 11.1389221557 129% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.