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 prompt supports the idea of the chairperson's prediction of the longevity of the West Egg's landfill becasue of the certain logical resoning. Nevertheless, the assumptions of the chairpersons are inflicted with numerous logical flaws to consdier any certain conclusion. These assumptions are to be mentioned followed by sufficient clarifications.
First of all, the chairperson believed that - the continuous recycling process will last for another three years to make the predictions of the consultants a faulty one. But what if the situation ultimately does not turned in the same way? What if the recycling process, the residents are currently dependent upon for the removal of their garbage, does not match the level of garbage in the future. It might be presumed by the residents that they have better solution to the removal of their garbages and so they might be profligate in producing garbages. As, the removal process are not of interminable capacity and soon the process might not be able withstand those exacerbated garbages. Because of the relative inefficicancy of the removal process compared to a greater number garbages might allow the landfill to fill up at a greater rate than earlier years, resulting the total fill up of the landfill. It will make the prediction of the consultants regarding the landfill authentic by disproving the prediction of the chairperson regarding the same.
Second point that the chairperson premised is that - most of the garbages of the landfill are of paper, plastic adn metal. But what if most of the garbages are not solid rather are somewhat liquid and most fo thsoe are of food wastes? The recycling process can clearly recycle the solid wastes but can it do the same for otehr liquid and food wastages that might be more in amount and can be more noxious compared to the metal ones? The chairperson has not given any evidence regarding the categories of the recylcing process. If the recycling process is good enough to recycle those semi-solid and food-beverage wastes then there will be no question about the prediction of the chairperson. But if that is not the case and the recycling process is not capable of doing so then it might befall the chairperson's argument regarding the longevity of the landfill. Inabaility to recycle those garbages will result in taking more space in the landfill by the garbages. And also, there will be certain limit upto which it can be degradable into soil after which the soild might not be withstand the significant amount of waste produced by the residents and so filling out the landfill faster than earlier prediction.
Thirdly, the chairperson assumed that - the responces of the respondents are veritable enough to predict a more capacious landfill to expect in future. But in this regard he had ignored the possibility that - there might be the case; most of the resident had not responded to the survey and those who had responded are the proposers of the recycling process, that is why they will favour the competency the recycling process in any way. What if the recycling process is considered too much costly for the habitants and so they might be interested to not to produce more garbages as they need to pay more for the pickup of their household garbages as well as for the recycling process. Because of this the recycling process might be seized to stop in the coming two years and as a result the garbage filling rate in the landfill will rise even though neccessary limitations in the garbage production. Also, to maintain a good pace in recycling process might be off to believe as it has to be continued for a longer period of time, of which the chairperson had not given any evidence.
So, looking at all the points and factors mentioned in the essay - it will require a good amount of evidences and answers of the questions asked in the parable to come to a certian conclusion as the chairperson is largely devoid of those.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 13 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 19 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 667 350
No. of Characters: 3226 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.082 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.837 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.746 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 227 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 190 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 90 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.792 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.7 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.792 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chairpersons'' or 'chairperson's'?
Suggestion: chairpersons'; chairperson's
The prompt supports the idea of the chairpersons prediction of the longevity of the West...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 217, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'turn'
Suggestion: turn
...at if the situation ultimately does not turned in the same way? What if the recycling ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 799, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'chairpersons'' or 'chairperson's'?
Suggestion: chairpersons'; chairperson's
...le of doing so then it might befall the chairpersons argument regarding the longevity of the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1093, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ich the soild might not be withstand the significant amount of waste produced by ...
^^
Line 7, column 142, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ict a more capacious landfill to expect in future. But in this regard he had ignored the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1015, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
... as it has to be continued for a longer period of time, of which the chairperson had not given...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, look, nevertheless, regarding, second, so, then, third, thirdly, well, as for, as to, in conclusion, as a result, as well as, first of all, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.9520958084 185% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 92.0 55.5748502994 166% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3282.0 2260.96107784 145% => OK
No of words: 667.0 441.139720559 151% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92053973013 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.08196252842 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78944950792 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.394302848576 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1025.1 705.55239521 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => 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: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5107440802 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.75 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.7916666667 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.375 5.70786347227 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188946969595 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640219952928 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0473583364153 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.108951935706 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479834426368 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.