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 pas

Essay topics:

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 evidences the chairperson listed to bolster his claim seem to be eloquent at first glance, but on close examination, they have some logical flaws which undermine the effectiveness of the claim, including the increasing amount of recycled materials in past two years, the survey they made to express the willingness of the public to recycle household materials and etc.

To begin with, the chairperson mentioned the increase of recycled materials in past two years. It would be more persuasive if the chairperson could also provide the demographic data of the town in past two years, as it is possible that the increase of recycled stuff is only a result of increasing population. With more people living in the town, more garbage will be produced and thus expedite the process of filling the landfill. Moreover, even if there’re more materials are recycled, it does not equate the producing speed of other garbage will decelerate at the same time.

Secondly, the assumption that higher charges for pickup of other garbage will raise the amount of recycled materials is unrealistic. As we all know, some of the household garbage like food waste is not recyclable. The rise of the pickup fee for this stuff may only increase the dissatisfactory of the public instead of encouraging people to recycle more materials. Thus more investigation should be done to figure out the current recycling status of the residents. If people have already had a good habit of recycling wastes and the recycling rate is quite high, the policy of increasing the pickup fee should not be imposed on the public.

Finally, the chairperson presented a result from a survey to support his claim, which is more than 90 percent of the respondents said they will recycle more stuff in the future. As the chairperson did not mention the detailed information about this survey, I have doubts on such a survey. It is entirely possible that this survey is conducted in an specifically selected community and it can not stand for the overall status. In addition, even if the survey is scientifically organised and the data is precise, the real situation could vary considerably, because many people tend to be too optimistic about their willingness to recycle.

In sum, the claim of the chairperson about the current and future recycling status in town need to be double checked with detailed information and investigation, including the trend the recycling status in past decades. In this way, we are able to draw a more precise prediction about the future recycling condition.

Votes
Average: 5.4 (1 vote)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 365, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...e public to recycle household materials and etc. To begin with, the chairperson menti...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 381, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... town, more garbage will be produced and thus expedite the process of filling the...
^^
Line 5, column 150, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...terials is unrealistic. As we all know, some of the household garbage like food waste is no...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...aging people to recycle more materials. Thus more investigation should be done to fi...
^^^^
Line 7, column 347, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...ssible that this survey is conducted in an specifically selected community and it ...
^^
Line 9, column 221, 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.
...d the recycling status in past decades. In this way, we are able to draw a more pr...
^^

Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'thus', 'in addition', 'to begin with']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.227956989247 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.161290322581 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0967741935484 0.0836205057962 116% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0537634408602 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0301075268817 0.0272364105082 111% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129032258065 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.047311827957 0.0416121511921 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87962716007 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0258064516129 0.026700313972 97% => OK
Particles: 0.00215053763441 0.001811407834 119% => OK
Determiners: 0.131182795699 0.113004496875 116% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0236559139785 0.0255425247493 93% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00430107526882 0.0127820249294 34% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2562.0 2731.13054187 94% => OK
No of words: 424.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04245283019 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.365566037736 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275943396226 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.200471698113 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.153301886792 0.135150697306 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87962716007 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 207.018472906 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469339622642 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 51.3497918315 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 26.5 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.9838988179 57.7814097925 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 160.125 141.986410481 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.2022227129 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8125 0.724660767414 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 54.0943396226 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.64912280702 1.8405768891 90% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.419981775453 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.183337118267 0.135418324435 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0814325188404 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.678405525178 0.58762219726 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.134025525688 0.147661913831 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.215674949427 0.193483328276 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0688933886521 0.0970749176394 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.500663342566 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0668800085854 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.309148088239 0.312017818177 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0515253018109 0.0698173142475 74% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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: This is not the final score. 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.