If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees,we encourage our residents to late last year our neighbouring town,Hayesworth has seen garbage disposal cost significantly decrease.If we implemented advertisingcampaign encouragingour residents to recycle Masontown would also save moneyon disposal of its waste.-write an argument ont his topic that is sent to editor of a newspaper.
The argument states that if Masontown wishes to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, the citizens of the town needs to recycle more. By doing so, the garbage would compose of only the inorganic or other non-recyclable stuffs. Well, the argument assumes that the garbage consists of a large portion of recyclable stuffs and if the people of the town do recycle the used cans, plastic waste and paper, it would reduce the amount of garbage to quite a great extent and ultimately, reducing the municipal garbage disposal fee.
On the contrary, if the garbage disposed presently consists of only non-recyclable stuff, after being recycled by the denizens of the town, and now, even if the citizens increase recycling no considerable difference is bound to occur on the garbage disposal fee. Henceforth, weakening the assumption which collapses the entire conclusion of the argument. Secondly, considering the fact that the present garbage of the town is not recycled at all before disposing. Even then, the recyclable products are little or next to nil in the entire waste disposal of town, leaving the town with the same high municipal disposal fee.
Next, the argument makes an assumption that a law that was passed in Hayesworth which requires all the households to recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine, eventually reducing the garbage disposal costs significantly would surely work in Masontown as well. The argument fails to mention whether the significant reduction in the fee was due to the increase in the fine fetched from violating the law which ended up generating a large revenue or due the increase in recycling of garbage from all the households. If the significant decrease in the garbage disposal fees was due to the huge revenue collected from all those households that violated the law, then the argument fails to support the conclusion that increasing awareness among residents to recycle more would help to save money on disposal of the town's waste.
An advertising campaign to encourage the residents to recycle would also cost the citizens and such an investment is not bound to produce results if recycling is not an issue that could reduce the overall disposal fees. Various other methods needs to be speculated to deal with the current situation of high disposal fees. The citizens of the town as well as the municipality are equally responsible for coming up with alternate solutions to the stated problem. Simply, imitating the model that functions well in a town which is entirely different in terms of various factors cannot be implemented in Masontown, henceforth, requiring a comprehensive and thorough research before any big leap is taken in the direction of dealing with the problem. Ultimately, spreading awareness, reducing the use of non-recyclable products, growing trees, keeping the environment cleaner could be little steps that could help to solve the problem in small ways as well as protecting the town and its environment.
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'hence', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'as well as', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.238636363636 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.168560606061 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0890151515152 0.0836205057962 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0568181818182 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00378787878788 0.0272364105082 14% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.121212121212 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0643939393939 0.0416121511921 155% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.81228572538 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0359848484848 0.026700313972 135% => OK
Particles: 0.00378787878788 0.001811407834 209% => OK
Determiners: 0.143939393939 0.113004496875 127% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0170454545455 0.0255425247493 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0151515151515 0.0127820249294 119% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2984.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 487.0 446.07635468 109% => OK
Chars per words: 6.1273100616 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69766713281 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.369609856263 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.320328542094 0.287650121315 111% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.229979466119 0.208842608468 110% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.145790554415 0.135150697306 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81228572538 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 207.018472906 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462012320329 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 52.6274113298 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 32.4666666667 23.2022227129 140% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.9629541656 57.7814097925 135% => OK
Chars per sentence: 198.933333333 141.986410481 140% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.4666666667 23.2022227129 140% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.724660767414 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 64.4995208761 51.9672348444 124% => OK
Elegance: 1.85123966942 1.8405768891 101% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139994418296 0.441005458295 32% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.201058959018 0.135418324435 148% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.104165426052 0.0829849096947 126% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.707322021662 0.58762219726 120% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.121580340137 0.147661913831 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890059117451 0.193483328276 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0676178445501 0.0970749176394 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.640525919579 0.42659136922 150% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0582904294056 0.0774707102158 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119915487945 0.312017818177 38% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0184583437546 0.0698173142475 26% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.