The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
"Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material — which includes paper, plastic, and metal — should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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.
The memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council came to conclusion that the based on current measures taken in the Town the landfill may last longer than predicted. This conclusion of the chairperson is based on several unwarranted assumption for the three below reasons.
First, the chairperson assumes that the consultants have not considered the statistics regarding the recycling being take place in the future. For Example, if the consultants have taken in to account current the statistics and historical data to predicts the increase in the level of recycling going to take place in the town, then the increasing number of recycling scenario which author stated will be flawed. Chairperson should provide all the parameter used by the consultants to make this assumption hold water.
Second, how could the increase in charges for pickup of other household garbage will increase the quantity of recycled material? For Example, if already majority of garbage produce is a recycling material and the remaining garbage could be such that it cannot be replaced with any other material, in that case even if the charges may increase to pick up the non-recyclable garbage then even though it will not result in increase of quantity of recycling waste products. The chairperson should have provided any information regarding the material currently be collected from household which has chance to be replaced by a recyclable material so that increase in other garbage collection charges could have forced the people to shift to the recyclable alternatives.
At last, the information collected based on survey could be just another social phenomenon and not actually convert into action. For Example, it is a human tendency to respond based universally supported case. If you take a survey and ask people, do you think we should not spoil of mother earth and will you eager to help to fight against this global warming. The majority of respondent will say that yes, they think human are spoiling the earth and they will do something to help decrease the damage, but most of us don’t do anything rather than answering positively in the survey. This could be same case here, people may have positively responded for good cause. The author must provide the way people could help increase the recycling of garbage then this point has been warranted.
In conclusion, the author prediction is based on many unwarranted assumptions. The author must provide further information to clarify the above stated points which would help strengthening the strong conclusion drawn by the author.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2143 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.066 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.712 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 121 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.438 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.309 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 175, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to strengthen' or 'strengthen'.
Suggestion: to strengthen; strengthen
...he above stated points which would help strengthening the strong conclusion drawn by the auth...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, if, may, regarding, second, so, then, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2186.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 422.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18009478673 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76703797953 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46682464455 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => 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
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.6257045057 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.625 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.375 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.375 5.70786347227 94% => OK
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 : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => 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: 0.156401500836 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0569226057058 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512658292222 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0982067760721 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0601257870212 0.0628817314937 96% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.06 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.