“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste.”
The argument focuses on the topic of saving money on municipal garbage disposal fees in Masontown and feels the need to encourage the residents of the town to recycle more objects. Further, a law implemented by the neighboring town is mentioned, which they implemented last year. The law states that the citizen are required to recycle their household waster or else will have to pay the fine. The law resulted in the decrease in disposal costs and to gain the similar results in Masontown, it is discussing the implementation of the advertising campaigns.
As the letter appeared in the local newspaper, the amount of information provided by the writer isn't enough for the citizens to understand the complete scenario. From the beginning of the argument it is mentioned that residents needs to be encouraged for the recycling to decrease the municipal garbage disposal fee but fails to provide the data which proves this point. The writer could have presented a chart or numerical figures to show how much recycling of waste is done, and how muhc is required. The record of previous years should also be mentioned which can favor the argument. Moreover, the writer fails to justify the reason for increment in the disposal fees, and at what rate it is changing. Following the statement, writer provides an example of the neighboring town, instead of that if he would have provided with the change in the fees by increasing the recycle of garbage, public might be more affected with that and might have responded in a positive way.
Further, as discussed about the Hayesworth, the data of their disposing fees is missing which could have presented a proper comparison between the two towns. There might be a possibility that the situation in Hayesworth is much worse than the Masontown and that's why they required a law. Or the fees might be this low that can be neglected if the recycling by the citizens increases. Proper information and clarification of Hayesworth town is missing. Furthermore, as the writer states that the fees in the neighboring town has decreased, but how much isn't mentioned. Maybe the law they implemented failed to provided the intended results is not clear.
In the last sentences, it is presented that Masontown is planning to start an advertising campaign to encourage the citizens, but does not provide proper details about so. Also, the conclusion of the statement is not clarified, if the government of Masontown only relies on such campaigns and recycling process or they are intending to do further more.
The overall scenario of the argument is weakened by the lack of information provided by the writer, which somehow questions his own credibility, if he has the further knowledge or if it is just an order he received to write for the paper. As the writer is also not disclosed, such arguments cannot be trusted as they might contain fake news.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 488 350
No. of Characters: 2353 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.7 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.822 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.732 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.195 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 558, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mentation of the advertising campaigns. As the letter appeared in the local news...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 97, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...t of information provided by the writer isnt enough for the citizens to understand t...
^^^^
Line 5, column 805, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had provided'?
Suggestion: had provided
...neighboring town, instead of that if he would have provided with the change in the fees by increasi...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 956, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a positive way" with adverb for "positive"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...cted with that and might have responded in a positive way. Further, as discussed about the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 258, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
...th is much worse than the Masontown and thats why they required a law. Or the fees mi...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 553, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...boring town has decreased, but how much isnt mentioned. Maybe the law they implement...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, may, moreover, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2417.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 486.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.97325102881 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79850898263 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452674897119 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3664730529 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.85 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.25 5.70786347227 39% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.212305448495 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0700333603976 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0691544918885 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124709856319 0.128457276422 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.101016272485 0.0628817314937 161% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.