The author claims that the high-intensity lighting is the best way to prevent vandalism. For supporting the above argument, the author gives quite interesting reasoning; however, the above reasoning contains some loopholes. For addressing such loopholes, the author needs to provide some additional information.
Firstly, the author provides data only from October, which is insufficient to generalise. The solution of high-intensity lighting is not validated for sustainable use until it is used for a long duration such as one year. The author should wait for some time and observe the situation for some time before claiming the solution is very effective. Additionally, he needs to provide other crimes committed to that area so that total crime rate can be calculated.
Furthermore, the author suggests that money invested for bicycle patrols should be diverted to high-intensity lighting. But, these two things are quite different. Money required for bicycle patrolling is less compared to the money required to high-intensity lighting. The Amburg city police may not have ability to spent such large amount of budget.
Finally, the author tries to compare condition at Belleville with Amburg. Belleville central business district may have large cases of vandalism compared to Amburg. So small percentage of decrease can cause significant decline in number of cases related to vandalism.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 230, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ecrease can cause significant decline in number of cases related to vandalism. ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 1.0 11.1786427146 9% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 28.8173652695 24% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1194.0 2260.96107784 53% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 213.0 441.139720559 48% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.60563380282 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.82027741392 4.56307096286 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98749478416 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 129.0 204.123752495 63% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605633802817 0.468620217663 129% => OK
syllable_count: 380.7 705.55239521 54% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 24.203642836 57.8364921388 42% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 85.2857142857 119.503703932 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2142857143 23.324526521 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.14285714286 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.132802025282 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0508773590148 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586749117374 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.084446338124 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490892480605 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 39.33 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.67 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.