The president of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce recommends to divert budget from existing bicycle patrols to installing high-intensity lighting in the city and claims that such measure will greatly reduce the crime rate. His suggestions is influenced by similar actions taken in the city of Belleville, and vandalism there declined almost immediately after these changes. Ostensibly, this argument is justfiable, at the first glance, but is flawed to be supported as the writer has made various assumptions.
To start with, by mentioning the high-intensity lighting installed and immediate vandalism rate decreasing in Belleville, the author implies that similar measure will also be practical in Amburg. However, geographical proximity does not guarantee similarity in criminal behavior. Perhaps the vandalism situation is fierce originally in Belleville, so that after new measure implemented the vandalism rate is greatly reduced. If the crime rate in Amburg is generally low originally, it is unreasonble to expect a great reduction in criminal incidents.
Besides, the author overlooks the underlying factors that may cause the crime rate reduction in Bellevile. Perhaps in Belleville, not only a strong lighting system was built, but also the authority imposed heavier panelties on vandalism and installed numerous supervisal camera all over the city to sway people from commiting crimes. Without fully evaluate all the measures the Belleville council taken, the possibilities that not installing lighting system is effective but other means do cannot be completely ruled-out.
The author also avers that installing new lighting system is the best approach to reduce commit rate of all kind of crimes, but provides insufficient substantiation to reinforce his claim. Given the situation of vandalism is relieved in Belleville after installing such strong-intensity lighting, the author simply concludes that such installation will be more effective than the bicycle patrol which is adopting in Amburg right now. Obviously, the writer fails to cite supports to determine whether this is the "best" approach to tackle with high crime attempting rate. What if most crminal incident in Amburg are occured during daytime, which the strong-intensity lighting does not affect the level of visibility at all. In addition, there's not evidence showing that the reduction of vandalism rate by installing new lighting also help in reducing other types of crimes in Belleville, so it is nonsense to deduce that applying relevant steps in Amburg will gain such effects.
To conclude, this suggestion apparantly finds supports in certain extent, but it goes to far in concluding the questionable effectiveness. More study is required to make it strongly convincing.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2295 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.477 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.973 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.656 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.321 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.048 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 49, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommends diverting'.
Suggestion: recommends diverting
...ident of the Amburg Chamber of Commerce recommends to divert budget from existing bicycle patrols to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 747, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: there's
...evel of visibility at all. In addition, theres not evidence showing that the reduction...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, first, however, if, look, may, so, in addition, kind of, to start with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2360.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.63245823389 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08937136015 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.532219570406 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 738.0 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.0121093689 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.823529412 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6470588235 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29411764706 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.21193949495 0.218282227539 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0675863304882 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573298577565 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117569058285 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0656232223095 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.3799401198 121% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.2 48.3550499002 62% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.67 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.32208582834 118% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.