The following appeared in a recommendation from the President of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce.
"Last October, the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined almost immediately. The city of Amburg, on the other hand, recently instituted police patrols on bicycles in its business district. However, the rate of vandalism here remains constant. Since high-intensity lighting is clearly the most effective way to combat crime, we recommend using the money that is currently being spent on bicycle patrols to install such lighting throughout Amburg. If we install this high-intensity lighting, we will significantly reduce crime rates in Amburg."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the letter, the author concludes that the crime behavior can be strikingly reduced by installing intense lighting system. To justify his/her conclusion, the author uses the fact that the decrease of vandalism in Belleville as an evidence. He/she also cite police patrols fail to have any effects on crime rate. Nevertheless, some questions should be addressed before the author prove the validity of argument.
Based on the credence concerning the diminishment of vandalism in Belleville, the author assumes that the high-intensity lighting system is direct reason for such result. However, there is a question needed to be answered to substantiated the argument. Is the lighting system really a causation? Basically, the reason might result from another factor. If the regulator in Belleville elevated the intensity of police patrols who devoted much effort and vigor into infrastructure protection, there would be less vandalism. Therefore, the lighting is not a necessary reason for the reduction on vandalism. I argue that the government in Amburg had better figure out the actual factor causing less crime before make a decision.
Apart from that, the author presents an unsubstantiated conclusion that police patrols in Amburg have nothing to do with vandalism, because of invariability on the number of malfeasances. Nevertheless, the author had better ascertain whether a series of actions taken in Amburg are not useful. For one thing, establishment of police patrols may not decline vandalism instantly and there might be a process between the actions and reductive trend. Thus, it’s possible that vandalism in Amburg will be gradually diminished in next a few mouths. On the other hand, although police patrols have been built in some districts where vandalism did decrease, those negative behaviors might increase in other areas without police patrols, which leads to the invariability on the total number of vandalisms. So, the administrators in Amburg have to examine the question stated above.
More importantly, in order to decrease vandalism, Amburg was planning to institute lighting system as Belleville did. But, even if the lighting system did take effects to the shrink of vandalism in Belleville, the government in Amburg can’t imitate same action completely. Regulators must be clear of a question that whether such measure is effective in their city. If Belleville is so big that instituting lighting system can be a huge task that is a waste of resources, such as electricity and labor, taking the same action will not be a wise choice under this circumstance. While government only institute lighting in specific areas to curtail the cost of project, what about the other districts? Therefore, in this case, Belleville’s success is not comparative with Amburg, or even causing other tough problems.
In a nutshell, despite the proposals put forward by the president of Amburg, as well as the reasons the author give, relevant answers for the question in my passage should be presented so as to validate the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2505 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.165 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.863 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.208 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.593 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.708 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.488 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 255, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[3]
Message: The pronoun 'she' must be used with a third-person verb: 'cites'.
Suggestion: cites
... Belleville as an evidence. He/she also cite police patrols fail to have any effects...
^^^^
Line 5, column 874, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e to examine the question stated above. More importantly, in order to decrease v...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 186, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...stion in my passage should be presented so as to validate the argument.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, therefore, thus, well, while, apart from, as to, such as, as well as, for one thing, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2584.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 483.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34989648033 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97393541356 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509316770186 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 817.2 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.2792814018 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.666666667 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.125 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.54166666667 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14686288327 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0447288139398 0.0743258471296 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0275271610282 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0818059851868 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0241288289296 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => 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.