In this argument the author concludes that we should stop paying for bicycle patrols and spend that money on installing high-intensity lighting in the city of Amburg. To support this conclusion, the author points out that the city of Belleville installed this kind of lighting, and vandalism there decreased promptly. However, the author’s argument is problematic in several aspects, making the argument unconvincing as it stands.
First, the author concludes that install high-intensity lighting is attributable to reducing vandalism. However, the sequence of the two events does not sufficiently prove that the former caused the later one. For example, it is possible if the government of Belleville made efforts on providing more job opportunities, and raises the stability of society. Or the police force in that city has strengthened greatly, and people who used to vandalize public assets are now afraid to commit crime, since they may be more possible to get arrested under this serious circumstance. Therefore, the author should answer these questions above to make the argument more persuasive and impeccable.
Second, the author indicates that police patrols on bicycles contributed nothing on declining the rate of vandalism. From my point of view, it is unfair to give this conclusion so early. Perhaps the patrols have not adjusted to their new pattern of work yet.once they get familiar with their new type of work, they will be more effective on maintaining social order. Besides, due that vandalism always takes place in dark corners, perhaps it is difficult to search for these crimes during bicycling patrols. What’s more, although the rate of vandalism there remains constant, perhaps the local crime rate is already low enough, so any measures will not have a great impact on reducing the local vandalism rate. To strengthen the argument, the author would have to provide more information about relationship between police patrols and vandalism rate.
Third, the author suggests that we should use the money that is currently being spent on patrols to install these lighting throughout. Even if installation of high-intensity lighting is effective and necessary, we don’t have to install them all over the city. We can only install them in places with a high rate of vandalism. Since it will be an enormous, unnecessary public investment. Besides too much strong light will produce light pollution, which has a bad impact on the sleep quality of residents at night. Thus, the author should promote a more effective solution to solve this problem.
Although the conclusion suggests that we should replace patrols with lightings is comprehensible, some questions should be addressed before the author validates the argument. Had the author delivered more answers to the questions, the conclusion and the argument might be more defensible.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2351 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.19 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.747 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.9 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.12 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, thus, for example, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2423.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 452.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36061946903 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84682421953 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.524336283186 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 738.9 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3163815989 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.136363636 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5454545455 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.59090909091 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.181162376761 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591561112849 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0588813814692 0.0701772020484 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106751098772 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0478232647817 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.3799401198 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.