In this argument, the author recommends city of Schenectady to install high intensity lighting to reach its goal of reducing vandalism and revitalize the decreasing neighborhood. To substantiate this point, he mentions the vandalism in city of Belleville has declined due to the installation of high intensity lighting, whereas the level of vandalism remains same even implemented police patrol. Even so, his argument is weak in supporting the why his recommendation is an effective one.
Firstly, there is no clear indication in his argument to claim intensity lighting is beneficial to control vandalism. Merely by mentioning Belleville city has installed this lighting system, cannot lead to the result that the vandalism will decline. Since there might be other reasons that caused the decline. The author doesn’t explain why this practice would reduce or stop vandalism. Hence, we cannot assume that lighting is the cause of vandalism decline. Same way in demonstrating that vandalism remains same level in Schenectady, the argument doesn’t mention why vandalism remains constant. Probably sending some police forces to patrol in the street do make certain contribution, while there are other reasons that induce people continue to make vandalism. This will make vandalism remains at same level as before. Without ruling out such possibility, we cannot say police patrolling is not making an effect.
To continue examining the argument, the conclusion of “most effective way” is not cogent and credible. To determine the best out of all, we need at least make some comparation between several objects or practices. However, there is no such comparation between installing the light and police patrolling. Besides these two methods, we cannot neglect other potential ways to help mitigate vandalism. The author should introduce more effective ways that might contribute to the target to establish a concrete conclusion. Only by including as many methods as possible into comparation, and pointing out the advantage of installing lighting over other methods, can we conclude that this is the most effective way.
Additionally, the author claims that by installing intensity lighting, the neighborhood in Belleville could also be revitalized. This totally sound groundless to us, since there is no evidence in previous content related to the neighborhood. We cannot find information about the declining neighborhood, neither the reason that caused the declining. To elaborate on this point, the author need to provide more fact about how vandalism caused the shrinking of the neighborhood and installing intensity light is the root cause to turn around this decline.
In summary, the conclusion of installing intensity on stands of some fallacious assumptions that might not firmly support the point. We might consider this as an good option, only until the author provides more evidences to make up for the holes and rule out other possibilities above.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: To determine the best out of all, we need at least make some comparation between several objects or practices.
Error: comparation Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: However, there is no such comparation between installing the light and police patrolling.
Error: comparation Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Only by including as many methods as possible into comparation, and pointing out the advantage of installing lighting over other methods, can we conclude that this is the most effective way.
Error: comparation Suggestion: No alternate word
---------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 461 350
No. of Characters: 2442 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.634 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.297 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.856 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 82 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.208 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.751 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.417 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.498 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.146 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 441, Rule ID: THE_HOW[1]
Message: Did you mean 'why'?
Suggestion: why
... so, his argument is weak in supporting the why his recommendation is an effective one....
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 250, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Since” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...result that the vandalism will decline. Since there might be other reasons that cause...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 643, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'patrolling'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'force' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: patrolling
...nt. Probably sending some police forces to patrol in the street do make certain contribut...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 159, 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
...rt the point. We might consider this as an good option, only until the author prov...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, firstly, hence, however, so, whereas, while, at least, even so, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2523.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49673202614 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98524398365 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488017429194 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 786.6 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.22255489022 237% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.4731941608 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.125 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.125 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.20833333333 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.17312572438 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0561079849536 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0622032051111 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.10890784533 0.128457276422 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.073876090474 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.