Author stated that, with encouraging Masontown's residents to recycle more, town can save money. This statement supported with example that neighboring town Hayesworth implemented this idea and became successful. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, two questions must be answered.
Firstly, does really recycling garbage is cheaper than disposal? Author mentioned just Hayesworth's garbage disposal costs decreased. But there is nothing about saving money. Maybe Hayesworth spent more money for recycling paper and glass than saved disposal fees. If this scenario has merit, then conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, does the Masontown's residents have same culture or opinion about garbages ? Maybe Masontown's people will not inspire from advertising campaign. Indeed, maybe they will refute recycling and pay a fine. So, again government should pay money for disposaling garbages and can not save money on disposal of waste. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer these two questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study), then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to implement an advertising campaign in Masontown.
e-rater score report
flaws:
No. of Words: 220 350
Minimum 250 words wanted
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 220 350
No. of Characters: 1206 1500
No. of Different Words: 140 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.851 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.482 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.893 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 89 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 74 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.784 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 2.0 13.6137724551 15% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 22.0 55.5748502994 40% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1242.0 2260.96107784 55% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 220.0 441.139720559 50% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.64545454545 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.85128510684 4.56307096286 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92771020941 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 143.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.65 0.468620217663 139% => OK
syllable_count: 384.3 705.55239521 54% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.3952499968 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.8 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.6666666667 23.324526521 63% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.86666666667 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.232016392029 0.218282227539 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0829858285866 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832283836479 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136365827513 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.07988808169 0.0628817314937 127% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 48.81 48.3550499002 101% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.9 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.92 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 64.0 98.500998004 65% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 12.3882235529 40% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.