The petition to the city council suggests that a ban must be imposed on cellphone use on sidewalks to reduce cases of sidewalk rage. The suggestion is made on the basis of a similar implementation in Middletown. However, before this recommendation can be entirely evaluated, three pieces of evidence must be appropriately presented.
Firstly, the petition has made a sweeping assumption that all cases of sidewalk rage are the result of cell phone usage. In other words, it is indirectly stated that little to no cases will erupt in the future if there is no cell phone usage on the sidewalks. It is possible that maximum instances take place owing to the fact that the sidewalks are severly narrow to accomodate the pedestrians. Additionally, it can also be the case that the children play and run on the sidewalks, and since they are too short to be noticed, adults bump into them. This rage can also be attributed to a multitude of other factors of a person's personal life. Hence, evidence of the cause of these episodes is essential to analyse the situation. If either of these scenarios has any merit, then the suggestion does not hold any water.
Secondly, even if it is assumed that majority cases take place due to texting and phone usage, what is the guarantee that people will not take to other methods of keeping their mind engaged while walking? This means that texting is not the only engaging activity on can do. A study must be undertaken to understand the walkers' preferences. For instance, what if a ban on phones pushes people to read while walking, or do stretching exercises? This will only prove to aggrevate the problem. Furthermore, group walking could become more popular, and people might talk to one other and walk parallelly while blocking majority of the sidewalk width. In the above mentioned cases, the authors suggestion will be significantly weakened.
Lastly, the suggestion makes a bold assumption that since the intended result was observed in Middletown, the same will take place for Centreville as well. This means that Middletown and Centreville are the same in terms of road infrastructure, people mentalities and several other factors. It is however possible that Middletown is a less busy town with people who are generally more calm and friendly. It can also be the case that the sidewalks there are wider and have more lanes. Admittedly, it is possible that Middletown's result will be emulated, but quantitative evidence with respect to the similarities of the two towns must be presented. If any of these possibilities are true, the suggestion is flawed.
In conclusion, this recommendation, as it stands, is considerably weakened due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the above stated assumptions can be clarified and the appropriate evidence is provided, perhaps in tems of a research study, then this recommendation of banning cell phones on sidewalks can be fully evaluated.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 619, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a person' or simply 'persons'?
Suggestion: a person; persons
...uted to a multitude of other factors of a persons personal life. Hence, evidence of the c...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 681, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...idth. In the above mentioned cases, the authors suggestion will be significantly weaken...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2461.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0327198364 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95429616127 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486707566462 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.9523539268 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.44 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.56 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.115906478538 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363234310221 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586311135637 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0775498621061 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558178000151 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 619, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a person' or simply 'persons'?
Suggestion: a person; persons
...uted to a multitude of other factors of a persons personal life. Hence, evidence of the c...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 681, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...idth. In the above mentioned cases, the authors suggestion will be significantly weaken...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2461.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 489.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0327198364 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70248278971 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95429616127 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486707566462 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.9523539268 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.44 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.56 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.115906478538 0.218282227539 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0363234310221 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0586311135637 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0775498621061 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0558178000151 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.