The author of the above letter makes a clear opinion that installation of high-intensity lighting over police patrols will help in reduction of crime rates in Amburg. The author makes many assumptions to state this view based on premises such as use of high-intensity lighting in Belleville reduced the crime rate there where as the police patrols instituted in Amburg did not show any significant reduction in the crime rates. The author has to come up with some strong facts and evidences to strengthen his assumptions and thereby his opinion.
Firstly, citing at his very first statement that the city of Belleville had shown an almost declination over vandalism, once it installed the high-intensity lighting in its central business district. Here, the author makes a clear assumption that the city of Belleville had come up with only one policy/idea of installing high-intensity lightning to reduce the crime rate in the city. In fact, there is no evidence stating that the city of Belleville did not practice other policies and solutions (along with the installation of high-intensity lightning) to eradicate the vandalism in and around the city. There can be a case that the city had adopted other practices like police patrols, imposing strict rules and regulations and taking strict actions for one who violates this established rules, along with the installation of high-intensity lighting.
Additionally, the author also put a point that the city of Amburg has instituted police patrols to vanish this vandalism but this did not show any significant change in the crime rate. The author here makes another weak assumption that the police who were patrolling were committed toward their obligations. For instance, it can be a case that the police though responsible to check after the illegal acts happening in and around the city did not really bother to take actions. And thus this irresponsibility, unexpected from the police, has led vandalism to exist as it was before.
Lastly, the author puts a mask over his point by comparing to different cities over an issue regardless of protruding the actual aura and the circumstances within the two cities. To strengthen his point, the author has to come up with the evidences that the situations like the people, the rules and regulations etc. are all same in both of the cities. There can be situation that, in the city of Amburg the people are recalcitrant and are undaunted by the authorities and the impact this people could face if they don’t follow the rules and regulation imposed by the authority. This might not be the situation in the city of Belleville. Thus, to strengthen his argument, the author has to give a proper analysis and data that the aura and the situation in both the city are tantamount to each other.
In order to strengthen his argument that the high-intensity lightning will significantly reduce the crime rate in Amburg, the author has to present a cogent comparison of the two cities. In order to access the merits of a certain situation, it is important to know all contributing factors. Without presenting cogent information, the argument remains open to debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 321, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...Belleville reduced the crime rate there where as the police patrols instituted in Amburg...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 429, 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.
...gnificant reduction in the crime rates. The author has to come up with some strong ...
^^^
Line 3, column 83, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('almost') instead an adjective, or a noun ('declination') instead of another adjective.
...t that the city of Belleville had shown an almost declination over vandalism, once it installed the h...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 485, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...unted by the authorities and the impact this people could face if they don't fo...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'lastly', 'really', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'as to', 'for instance', 'in fact', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.27610619469 0.25644967241 108% => OK
Verbs: 0.146902654867 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0513274336283 0.0836205057962 61% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0353982300885 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0247787610619 0.0272364105082 91% => OK
Prepositions: 0.141592920354 0.125424944231 113% => OK
Participles: 0.0371681415929 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94491990567 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0353982300885 0.026700313972 133% => OK
Particles: 0.00530973451327 0.001811407834 293% => OK
Determiners: 0.146902654867 0.113004496875 130% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.012389380531 0.0255425247493 49% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00530973451327 0.0127820249294 42% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3168.0 2731.13054187 116% => OK
No of words: 522.0 446.07635468 117% => OK
Chars per words: 6.06896551724 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.346743295019 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.247126436782 0.287650121315 86% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.195402298851 0.208842608468 94% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.16091954023 0.135150697306 119% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94491990567 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 207.018472906 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444444444444 0.469332199767 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.3535589532 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 26.1 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.1616780019 57.7814097925 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.4 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.8126436782 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 2.19658119658 1.8405768891 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.595303983884 0.441005458295 135% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.169431078594 0.135418324435 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.101997976185 0.0829849096947 123% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.658364055875 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122895751089 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.302613758819 0.193483328276 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116051775706 0.0970749176394 120% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.52968981224 0.42659136922 124% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0208217898764 0.0774707102158 27% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.440156892637 0.312017818177 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0886764564089 0.0698173142475 127% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.