In this memo, the editor of the Waymarsh Times argues that Garville’s policy will work equivalent in Waymarsh. To support this argument, the author points out that a recent survey shows commuting time increased twice as 2 years ago and reasons that new road-building could not work efficient as a solution. Marking the success of Garville’s new policy, the editor recommends implementing identically to Waymarsh will benefit its residents. However, I find this claim specious in several respects.
To begin with, the author claims that demographical and occupational condition of Garville and Waymarsh are similar enough that is likely to make equal outcomes. Yet this claim is too hasty to conclude since there are no mentions about their conditions. Perhaps Garville is a well-known town for mining and most of the residents’ workplaces are concentrated to certain places which made sharing ride to works was efficient. However, if Waymarsh is located adjacent to the capital of the country then residents’ workplaces will likely to be dispersed to diverse places of which sharing rides turn out to be inefficient. Therefore, confirming the backgrounds of both towns should be required before implementing Garville’s policy to Waymarsh.
In addition, the author mentions that financial inefficacy of new road-building led to recommending Garville’s policy implement. Yet the author relies on the assumption that the only traffic solution is new road constructions and this will disrupt the residents. Perhaps Waymarsh could have examined other methods such as subways or bicycle roads. Also, they should have done surveys among the residents whether they will feel disrupted by new construction regardless the value of fast access to their workplaces by constructing new roads. If the expectation seems plausible enough, some would endure few years and willing to have convenient commutation of which benefit will continue forever.
Moreover, the author asserts that sharing rides and being provided free gas coupons could lessen pollution and commuting time. Yet the author is overlooking the disadvantage of carpooling; one should devote oneself to drive more and commute longer. If anyone who gets disadvantages by following this policy, it doesn’t have any meaning for doing it. Unsatisfied people will complain and can have conflicts with advantaged groups. To diminish this discrepancy, Waymarsh should specifically judge the advantages and side effects of conducting Garville’s policy to prevent social disorder.
In sum, the editor’s recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, examining the similarities of both town’s conditions should be conducted. Also to better assess the argument, we would need to know whether Waymarsh residents showed unpleasant proclivity to new road-building and whether it was the only solution.
Essay evaluation 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: 22 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2369 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.421 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.928 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 192 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 73 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.864 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.757 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.281 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.046 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 166, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...'s conditions should be conducted. Also to better assess the argument, we would...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, therefore, well, in addition, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2479.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 436.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.68577981651 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56953094068 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.21475125987 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564220183486 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 742.5 705.55239521 105% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7658350311 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.681818182 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8181818182 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.40909090909 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180401228668 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563406419152 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438051006826 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.111613775674 0.128457276422 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0495096010402 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 15.72 12.5979740519 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.32 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 131.0 98.500998004 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.