The following is a letter to the editor of the Waymarsh Times.
Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh.
In this argument, the author claims that Waymarsh should follow the policy of Garville to resolve the problem of traffic. The argument seems to be some validity at first glance, but we immediately found out there are several logical mistakes throughout the whole article. My reasons can be substantiated by the incoming comments:
To begin with, the author says that the survey showed that the typical driving commuter now takes closer to 40 minutes to get to work, which is more than before. However, we need more evidence in this topic. We do not know whether the sample and research data are same in the survey. If the typical driving commuter changed their job or house, they would probably change their route since they had to go to different locations to work. The author need to provide more detail about this survey to make people believe it.
Even if the survey is veracious, it is not to say that the new construction will disrupt some of residential neighborhoods because of the expenditure. We need more evidence that the program of the road building is expensive than other ways to address the problem. If the expenditure of program of road building is not higher than other ways, it will not disrupt some of residential neighborhoods.
Finally, the author says that we should follow the policy of Garville to fix the problem. Nevertheless, we still need more evidence about the differences and similarities between Waymarsh and Garville to evaluate the possibility of sharing ride to work. If people living in Waymarsh are sporadic and cannot easily share the ride for each other. That is to say, following the policy of Garville will not be successful.
To sum up, the author have to provides more evidence in detail to make valid assumptions he provided. Without such evidence, we cannot jump to the conclusion that following the policy of Garville can fix the traffic problems in Waymarsh. All in all, if the author provides more precise evidence and mends the logical mistakes, then the argument would be more persuasive.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 345 350
No. of Characters: 1658 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.31 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.806 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.563 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 91 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 24 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.737 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.144 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 31, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'provide'.
Suggestion: provide
...ful. To sum up, the author have to provides more evidence in detail to make valid a...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, then, to begin with, to sum up, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1718.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 345.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.97971014493 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64555918604 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498550724638 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 537.3 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.6391650877 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.058823529 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2941176471 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.17647058824 5.70786347227 108% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.160522291645 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0521867972926 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568566459261 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0852131077036 0.128457276422 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0497918887675 0.0628817314937 79% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.6 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.15 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.