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.
A memorandum from the chairperson of West Egg Town Council suggests that the space available in the West Egg landfill area should last considerably longer than predicted. In order to support such a claim, the chairperson has provided evidence that seem to bolster the assertion made by the chairperson, regarding the landfill area that is left in West Egg. The chairperson's claim as well as the evidence seem convincing at the first glance, although a closer look might unearth a few alternate possibilities or discrepancies which might undermine the chairperson's claim.
Firstly, the arguer has pointed towards a prediction made by consultants regarding the space available in the landfills of West Egg. The prediction was made two years ago, which stated that landfills in West Egg will be completely full in five years time. The arguer seems to disagree with such a prediction by stating that residents of West Egg are keen recyclers and hence, the landfills will not fill up for a long period of time. The arguer has based this assertion on data that has been collected during the past two years. Just looking at the past data does not ensure that the same trend will continue for the next three years as well. What if there is a drop in the amount of waste being recycled in West Egg? This would undermine the chairperson's initial claim, and it might be the case that the consultants' prediction turns out to be correct and West Egg has no landfill space left, three years down the line.
Secondly, the arguer hints towards a survey conducted among the residents of West Egg, wherein ninety-percent of the respondents have claimed that they will recycle at a greater level in the future. Such a survey does not hold enough substance to justify the chairperson's assertion regarding the availability of landfill area in the future. The survey could have been conducted in a haphazard way, wherein the respondents have agreed to recycle, just for the sake of the survey. The honesty with which the survey was answered by the residents of West Egg is questionable. As a result, it cannot be categorically stated if the residents of West Egg will recycle larger quantities of waste in the future. This could call into question, the chairperson's position.
Lastly, the arguer has stated that West Egg are taking measures to ensure that residents recycle maximum amount of their waste. The chairperson has mentioned that the charges for pickup of other household garbage will double from next month. The chairperson seems confident that such a move will encourage residents to recycle maximum amount of their waste. The arguer fails to specify in the memorandum, the money charged initially, and the money that will be charged next month onward for pick up of other household garbage. If the money charged earlier was infinitesimal, then doubling the charge would not act as big a deterrent as the chairperson expects. It could be possible that the residents have now become tired of the process of waste recycling and hence find it it easier to pay extra money for picking up of household waste. If such a situation crops up, it would seriously undercut the arguer's position and people would probably doubt his final claim.
In sum, the evidence provided by the chairperson are dubious and erroneous in nature. They hint towards several alternate scenarios which call into question the chairperson's prediction. As a result, it cannot be categorically stated if the chairperson's prediction, regarding the availability of landfill area in West Egg would hold true.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 595 350
No. of Characters: 2922 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.939 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.911 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.753 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.885 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.924 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 419, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...e landfills will not fill up for a long period of time. The arguer has based this assertion on...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 435, 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.
... not fill up for a long period of time. The arguer has based this assertion on data...
^^^
Line 3, column 806, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'consultants'' or 'consultant's'?
Suggestion: consultants'; consultant's
...laim, and it might be the case that the consultants prediction turns out to be correct and ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 260, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chairpersons'' or 'chairperson's'?
Suggestion: chairpersons'; chairperson's
...ot hold enough substance to justify the chairpersons assertion regarding the availability of...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a haphazard way" with adverb for "haphazard"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...e. The survey could have been conducted in a haphazard way, wherein the respondents have agreed to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 359, 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.
... recycle maximum amount of their waste. The arguer fails to specify in the memorand...
^^^
Line 7, column 773, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: it
...ocess of waste recycling and hence find it it easier to pay extra money for picking u...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 162, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chairpersons'' or 'chairperson's'?
Suggestion: chairpersons'; chairperson's
... scenarios which call into question the chairpersons prediction. As a result, it cannot be c...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 241, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chairpersons'' or 'chairperson's'?
Suggestion: chairpersons'; chairperson's
...t cannot be categorically stated if the chairpersons prediction, regarding the availability ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, well, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2978.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 595.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00504201681 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93888872473 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76372540148 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.413445378151 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 892.8 705.55239521 127% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 18.0 8.76447105788 205% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.1267407777 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.538461538 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8846153846 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.19230769231 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 5.25449101796 171% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376919510739 0.218282227539 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11304706033 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0966327947885 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.214610602582 0.128457276422 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.1245590099 0.0628817314937 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.65 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.