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 author believes that increase of the sidewalk rage was result from the people who used their cellphone on sidewalks. However, the evidence offered by the author is insufficient.
The memo states that banning cell phone use on sidewalks can resolve the problem of disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. However, we need more evidence about this issue. What if the disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic is not because of the cell phone? It is possible that people walked slower than before. Even if some of people used their cell phone when they walk on sidewalk, we cannot assert cell phone is the problem. Lots of people using their cell phone still walk faster than people who do not use. Therefore, more information about this issue is needed.
The author suggestes that people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, and they easily walk into the road and bump into other walkers. Nevertheless, we need further proof about this issue. There is no evidence that people bump into other walkers is the problem of using phone. For example, when I use my phone, I always see the front, and I never bump into other people. Thus, we cannot say lots of disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic are because of the phones.
The memo states that when Middletown passed such a ban, they did not ever hear complaints, and the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down. Still, we need more inforamtion about this issue. What if there were no complaints with the sidewalk just because people did not complain? It is possible that people knew the cell phone was banned so that they did not need to complain, and the reporter heve not need to report this issue either.
To strengthen the argument, the author would need to provide more information as above mentioned.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 306 350
No. of Characters: 1449 1500
No. of Different Words: 136 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.182 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.735 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.295 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 96 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 60 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 39 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 23 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.609 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 325, Rule ID: MOST_SOME_OF_NNS[1]
Message: After 'some of', you should use 'the' ('some of the people') or simply say ''some people''.
Suggestion: some of the people; some people
...ople walked slower than before. Even if some of people used their cell phone when they walk on...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, nevertheless, so, still, then, therefore, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
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: 1507.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 306.0 441.139720559 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92483660131 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18244613648 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40626975554 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.483660130719 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 457.2 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.0882543819 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 79.3157894737 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1052631579 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.78947368421 5.70786347227 66% => 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 : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.0286351878286 0.218282227539 13% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0105749625094 0.0743258471296 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0198175514219 0.0701772020484 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0220246162929 0.128457276422 17% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0227937914787 0.0628817314937 36% => 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: 9.8 14.3799401198 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.96 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.47 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.