The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
As per given argument, rush hour traffic increased on blue highway which doubled commuters time. The propsed solution is to add an aditional bicycle lane to the highway. The argument is based on nuumrous assumptions such as commuters will use bicycles in rush hours, increased traffic is only due to incresed number of commuters, not due to bad condition of highway, and incresed traffic is every problem and it needs some permanent solution.
The main evidence which we need to determine the success of the proposed solution to add bike lane is that, people who are using blue highway will be willing to use bicycle to commute during rush hours or not. May be people like ride bicyle by exercise or fun purpose, but not to commute. There is a possiblity that distance which people drive on blue highway is more and can not be commutable by bicycle. In this case, adding bike lane may not solve commuters problem.
Author surmised that increased traffic is everyday problem and it needs permanent solutions. It is possible that the city is hosting some event for few days, and people are travelling to city to attend it, which is doubling commuters time. In this case, traffic will be normal after that event is over, and there is no need to build extra bike lane on highway.
Author compared Bule and green highways, without explaining how both highways are similar to each other, and are the commutors of blue highway are having same problem as green highway commuters have. It is possible that on green highway lanes are not in good condition and all the commuters prefer to use new lane, which is causing traffic jam. Therefore, without answering these questions, author can't conclude is adding extra lane didn't work for green highway and will not work for blue highway.
Thus, as per above discussion, more evidences on blue highway conditions, cause of traffic increase and commutors interest in riding bicycles need to be considered before reaching on any conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...nd it needs some permanent solution. The main evidence which we need to determin...
^^^
Line 7, column 399, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...thout answering these questions, author cant conclude is adding extra lane didnt wor...
^^^^
Line 7, column 434, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...thor cant conclude is adding extra lane didnt work for green highway and will not wor...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, may, so, therefore, thus, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1651.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 336.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91369047619 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28139028586 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.46582185558 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494047619048 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 519.3 705.55239521 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0631364019 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.928571429 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.71428571429 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => 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: 0.235574158486 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0989547088488 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.076854759833 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143760918214 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0487706330626 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.49 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.