The following is a recommendation from the city manager of Bridge Bay.
Last year, the number of visits to our local beach in Bridge Bay was 50 percent lower than the year be. Early last year we ended our contract with Arko Trash Collection, a company that had serviced local garbage collection for the past twenty years. We switched at that time to Satellite Waste Corporation, another trash collection company. In nearby Ocean Harbor, where Arko has continued to provide garbage collection, the beaches are experiencing record levels of attendance. Meanwhile, in Bridge Bay, complaints about garbage on our beach have increased this year. Clearly, inadequate garbage collection on our beach by Satellite has led to the significant drop in visitors. Therefore in order to restore visitor numbers to our local beach, we recommend resuming our contract with Arko as soon as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of this recommendation suggested to the city managers about the influence of the change in garbage collection contracts. This hypothesis on the reason of the decrease of visitors is worthy of investigation, but further evidence is needed before it can be ascertained.
Firstly, this letter pointed out that the change in contract happened early last year. As a matter of fact, this coincides with the significant drops in visitors this year, and since changing contracts have never happened in twenty years, this is presumably an important factor in the demise of local tourism. However, the two things happening simultaneously is insufficient as evidence. Instead, more needs to be learned, including the exact differences between the working standards of the two companies.
Another part of the argument in use is the comparison between the two tourist attractions. In the nearby Ocean Harbor, no change had been done on the provider of trash collection services, and the number of visitors increased to record numbers the previous year. This contrast between the two locations would not be effective, however, since they do not satisfy the statistical requirements of being mutually independent. One possible explanation is that other factors improved the attraction of Ocean Harbor to visitors, and as general tourism is limited in its scope, less would be willing to come to the similar Bridge Bay, regardless of the actual state of affairs here. The joint numbers of visitor to the two different locations should be collected, and if an inverse correlation is present, this is strong evidence that the competition between the two sites is what truly affected the visitor volume. If this were indeed the case, the right thing to do is to figure out novel ways to gain the attention of the external world of visits.
Finally, the complaints about the untidiness of the current beach is indeed proof that better cleaning services are required. Nevertheless, even with no change in contracted services, or any change in the state of the beach, persistent garbage on the beach severely affects nearby residents, and the complaints would be likely to pile up. The reason for such a bold switch to another servicing company must have been important, however, and switching back would be just as problematic, especially since the evidence on bad service is still close to nonexistent. Even if another contract change is eventually deemed necessary, it would be wise to search for a company that is willing to solve the long-standing issues of the beach in Bridge Bay.
Considering the above reasoning and the arguments provided in the recommendation, it is true that the services of the new Satellite Waste Corporation is likely insufficient for the needs of the local beach. However, is is unreasonable to suggest that a switch back would be effective, and new attractions would probably be needed for visitors to return.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2403 1500
No. of Different Words: 237 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.038 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.821 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.167 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.057 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: is
... the needs of the local beach. However, is is unreasonable to suggest that a switch b...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, so, still, as a matter of fact, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2467.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 477.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17190775681 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67336384929 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91776454612 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.507337526205 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 765.0 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 9.0 1.67365269461 538% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.1099265442 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.055555556 119.503703932 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.5 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.5 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.180397271891 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562276044369 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0531513401376 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.093433793292 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301622473995 0.0628817314937 48% => 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: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.9 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.