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. 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 decreased. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste."
The recommendation attempts to bridge a relationship between reducing garbage disposal fees and encouraging local residents to recycle more waste. The conclusion is based on the premises that, the neighbouring town passed a law to reduce garbage for recycling waste and was successful, so would be Masontown just by encouraging it's residents. However, in deeper analysis, it is evident that, certain relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
The local newspaper urges the residents of Masontown to recycle garbage more to save money and provides an example of neighbouring state in this regard. However, the problem is that, the neighbouring state, Haesworth, did not just urge it's people to recycle garbage but also passed a law to implement that. When people will see that, they will have to pay extra money for dumping garbage, obviously there will be a reduction of garbage automatically. So, the same result will happen in Masontown just by encouraging the residents is not a strong claim to sustain. The author of the editorial should have presented more information regarding his belief that just encouraging will be enough to reduce garbage to substantiate his claim.
Another problem in the argument is that, something worked for a state does not justify the claim that, it will also work in another state. There can be situation like, the living standard of the states discussed differ in a great way. If the residents of Masontown live a substandard life compared to Hayesworth, they will not pay much heed about the issue of garbage dumping wihtout any strict law. When living standard becomes low, residents become more concerned with othe things like earning livelihood, accomodation etc. So, the author should have provided more information to compare those two states, so that we can have a sound idea about the actual situation.
Moreover, there can be other factors working for Hayesworth. There can be some company who are working on recyclable garbage and that is why they were collecting those things from the household of Hayesworth. If that is the case, automatically the amount of garbage will decline in Hayesworth.
Finally, to conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide irrational assumptions. The conclusion of the editor seems tenuous due to lack of supporting evidence. The author should have presented more concrete information to substantiate his viewpoints and to make his argument more cogent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 219, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a great way" with adverb for "great"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...standard of the states discussed differ in a great way. If the residents of Masontown live a s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, moreover, regarding, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2125.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24691358025 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88850477556 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508641975309 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 666.9 705.55239521 95% => 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
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.0095357014 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.842105263 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.94736842105 5.70786347227 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.201704483259 0.218282227539 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0664223195964 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0616808250175 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.109784839332 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0516696511696 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.