The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville:
"Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down significantly."
The frustration that is derived from pedestrians walking along Centerville sidewalks is causing general havoc and is attributed to the use of cellphones. The arguements presented indicate a rise in crime and the endangerment of civilians due to distracted walkers. However, the audience should be wary of the writers arguement since the writer takes many liberties with the validity of the arguements.
First, the general arguement being made is that cellphones are a major cause of the 'sidewalk rage'. With no other possible rationale given, it is presented that removing cellphone use will prevent further sidewalk crime. However, it is never shown that the assaults or property damge is directly by cellphone users or a person encountering a passerby using a cellphone. For this reason, it is difficult to determine that cellphone use is the direct cause of the crimes.
Secondly, the writer professes the disruption of cellphone use by pointing out that users are more likely to bump into other pedestrians and objects on the sidewalk. This fallacy is presented without the consideration of other types of pedestrians that may be prone to bumping without cellphones: groups, sightseers, and people with vision-impairment. The writer continues that children are in the most danger due to their small size. However, the writer failed to consider that users look down at their cellphones, making users more likely to notice a child than if looking straight ahead.
There is some merit to the writers point that banning cell phone use will improve the quality of walking on a sidewalk. This arguement is backed up by the success of the ban made in Middletown and its' significant decrease in sidewalk crime. However, the audience cannot guarantee that the positive effect the ban had in Middletown will also affect their hometown. For this reason the arguement, as presented, requires further scrutiny.
Although a ban of cell phones may improve the quality of a trek along the sidewalks of Centerville, there is no way to know for sure if it will improve in such a way as presented by the writer. Further evidence is required to backup the claims made by the writer. For now, it is best for the city council to hold off any bans of cellphone use until further information is provided.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 195, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
... such a way as presented by the writer. Further evidence is required to backup the clai...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 224, Rule ID: CAN_BACKUP[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to back up'?
Suggestion: to back up
...he writer. Further evidence is required to backup the claims made by the writer. For now,...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1917.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0580474934 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83955523162 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.498680738786 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 604.8 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 34.832934607 57.8364921388 60% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.5 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0555555556 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.44444444444 5.70786347227 60% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0743351126122 0.218282227539 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0268431097455 0.0743258471296 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0326369463089 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0458374381859 0.128457276422 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0134715133927 0.0628817314937 21% => 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: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.