The author of this letter to the editor of a local newspaper argues that the addition of a new lane to the Blue Highway would be useless, and that the addition of a bicycle lane would be rather helpful to reduce rush-hour traffic. At first glance, this argument may seem convincing; however, on closer inspection, one can quickly recognize that this letter is rife with unwarranted assumptions, lacking relevant evidence.
First of all, the author disagrees with the favored proposal of the motorists' lobby to widen the highway. This is because, according to the author, the similar actions on the Green Highway was counterproductive, worsening traffic jams on it. However, the author does not present compelling evidence on this claim. What was the major factor of the traffic jams on the Green Highway? Why was there the increase in traffic jams after the addition of a lane to the Green Highway? Is that increase in traffic jams due to the addition of a lane? It could be possible that due to the new construction of factories nearby the Green House and the consequent increase of the number of commuters, the addition of only one lane to the Green Highway might not have been enough. Also, the worsening of traffic jams on the Green Highway may be just a temporary phenomenon due to the increased car accidents on other highways. In other words, unless the author explains the correlation between the addition of a lane to the Green Highway and the worsening of traffic jams on it, the reason the author presented cannot be justified for the disagreement with the favored proposal of the motorists' lobby.
Second, one of the major assumptions the author relies on is that the addition of a bicycle lane to the Blue Highway would be helpful for the reduction of traffic on the highway. However, the author does not take account of the plausibility. Above all, highways are the roads for cars. So, it seems hard to add a bicycle lane to the highway. Is there any risk of accidents between the cars and the bicyclists? Moreover, the author also lack evidence about the current number of bicyclists, especially who are willing to commute through the bicycle. It may be true that the many area residents are keen bicyclists, but it does not necessarily mean that they are also willing to use their bicycles when they commute. They may just ride bicycle only for their health and hobby. If they would not use bicycle for commuting after the addition of a bicycle lane, it would cause more severe traffic jams on the Blue Highway, narrowing the width of the existing lanes. Thus, the author should provide more specific evidence about opinions of residents whether they are willing to use a new bicycle lane or not. It could be an option to conduct a survey research toward residents.
Lastly, the author assumes that the main cause of the current traffic problems on the Blue Highway must be due to the increased number of the cars on the highway. Of course, the commuters claim that the traffic on the Blue Highway increased, but there is virtually no way for commuters to determine exact levels of traffic on the highway. They could just feel that there is an increased traffic on the Blue Highway just because it takes longer for them to commute than usual. It leaves open the possibility that the major cause of the problem is not because of the increased number of cars on the Blue Highway. The increased one may not the cars, but the car accidents hampering the flow of the cars. In such a case, it would be a more effective measure to strengthen traffic education to motorists. On the other hand, if it is true that the number of cars on the Blue Highway increased, widening the highway adding a new traffic lane could be a real solution. Thus, the author needs to examine the exact cause of the recent traffic problem on the Blue Highway, and then present relevant solutions.
To sum up, the claim of the author that the addition of a new car lane to the Blue Highway would cause more severe traffic jams seems not to obtain broad support from the readers. To strengthen his argument, he should provide more specific data about the willingness of residents to use bicycles for commuting and the information about the causes of the recent increased rush-hour traffic on the Blue Highway.
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis."Ten years ago, as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program, the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of 63
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil Most homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as 30
- The following was written by a group of developers in the city of Monroe."A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. At present, the nearest jazz club is over 60 miles away from Monroe; thus, our pro 69
- The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books."We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a larg 66
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of a company that specializes in the delivery of heating oil."Most homes in the northeastern United States, where winters are typically cold, have traditionally used oil as 84
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, so, then, thus, of course, first of all, in other words, it is true, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 111.0 55.5748502994 200% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3549.0 2260.96107784 157% => OK
No of words: 750.0 441.139720559 170% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.732 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.23317569696 4.56307096286 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53341368294 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.345333333333 0.468620217663 74% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1098.0 705.55239521 156% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.5370075956 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.90625 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4375 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.96875 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less 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: 0.219571672618 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0707839691497 0.0743258471296 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535618413734 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144418388713 0.128457276422 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0429454414879 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.45 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.45 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not exactly. The complaints are just for rush hours.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 32 15
No. of Words: 750 350
No. of Characters: 3471 1500
No. of Different Words: 246 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.233 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.628 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.446 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 245 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 193 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.216 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.594 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.352 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.16 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5