The argument in the memorandum states that the landfill of the West Egg Town should last considerably longer than predicted due to the changing behaviour of the residents of the town. The argument, however, does not provide credible reasoning for any of its statements and further examination is needed before reaching any conclusion.
Firstly, the author claims a report that was conducted two years ago which stated that the landfill is supposed to be filled within five years. It does not provide any information on how this prediction was made. What factors for such claim were considered? Is it possible that the changing attitude of residents was compensated in the calculations?
Another question that needs to be considered is that residents have almost doubled their recycling material. This statement does not provide how much percentage of the garbage is actually recycled?. Perhaps that only 1% of the garbage was recycled earlier than a further increase of 1% should not change the earlier predictions. We also do not know what percentage of the total garbage dumped comes from households. It is possible that the towns have a large portion of garbage dumped from industries located or newer industries have opened in the city. It is possible that the town recently had a large portion of immigrants due to new business opportunities. Subsequently, the landfill will fill faster than before.
Lastly, no evidence for the claim that residents will recycle more since the increase in the pickup of household charges. It is not clear if the charges are according to the amount of garbage dumped by each household. Usually, a flat meagre amount is charged irrespective of the amount of garbage. In such a scenario, no change in behaviour should be expected. While a large fraction of respondents may agree to do recycling in future, more details regarding the survey are required. Are the people who responded positively actually going to find time to recycle?. What fraction of increased recycling will occur in the future?
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author provides all the necessary evidence.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1826 1500
No. of Different Words: 184 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.072 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.826 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.804 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.269 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.483 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 426, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...f respondents may agree to do recycling in future, more details regarding the survey are ...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1877.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21388888889 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92720187252 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 585.9 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.6188222074 57.8364921388 58% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.3181818182 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.3636363636 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.138416311036 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0350500559447 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0454133149236 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.07829239806 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.043918149976 0.0628817314937 70% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.