In a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown, the author persuades the implementation of an advertising campaign about recycling the wastes in the community in order to reduce pecuniary spent over was municipal garbage disposal fees. However, the author failed to produce plausible evidences that can better strengthen his argument for the effective saving of garbage disposal fees.
Firstly, the author compares Masontown to its neighboring town Hayesworth for having effectively introduced a law which resulted in saving garbage disposal fees. The author did not elaborate about how impactful the law enforced. Did it really made the people of Hayesworth to follow the same ? How about the people in Hayesworth spending their hard earned money for the stringent law collecting fines for their mistakes? Therefore, drawing conclusions based on unrealistic facts in no way results in effective expenditure over disposal fees. The author did not mention about how a law implemented in a neighboring town can impute to the people in Masontown to initiate gains over disposal fees.
Moreover, Hayesworth may perhaps be a town generating less municipal waste compared to Masontown. Contrasting two towns with the same statistical data may be helpful to indicate that the author's claim on the recommendation is worthwhile. Did the people in Hayesworth propagated advertising campaign to achieve this goal? There is little information provided about the tools and tactics proposed by the Hayesworth town. In case, if the author had produced certain evidences on the campaign followed by Hayesworth, then the recommendation for implementing the same in Masontown could be acceptable.
Furthermore, the author recommends a simple advertising campaign for elucidating the people with recycling wastes. It is ambiguous here about people imbibing the details regarding recycling wastes. If people are less cooperative to initiate such activities, then the author's hold on the campaign falls vain. The author failed to delineate the cost incurred to establish recycling techniques in each household. In case, the recycling process is supposed to cost heavy compared to the disposal fees, then the author's claim on cost effective techniques holds no water.
To conclude, the author's support for the campaign may seem fruitful at first glance. However, if the above circumstances and questions were answered with supporting evidences, then the concrete plan for Masontown to espouse a cost effective technique over garbage disposal fees may be viable.
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: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 2125 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.407 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.947 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.65 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.425 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.356 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.099 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 191, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stes in the community in order to reduce pecuniary spent over was municipal garba...
^^
Line 3, column 22, Rule ID: MIGHT_PERHAPS[1]
Message: Use simply 'may', 'perhaps'.
Suggestion: may; perhaps
...er disposal fees. Moreover, Hayesworth may perhaps be a town generating less municipal was...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, really, regarding, so, then, therefore, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 9.0 28.8173652695 31% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2163.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.50381679389 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99497655464 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488549618321 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 673.2 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.6567251315 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.15 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.65 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.16282041289 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0566198271933 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0491308023114 0.0701772020484 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.101243099972 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0469296103484 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.