ok
The author of the argument claims that the replacing of Mathescam Bridge will be not be a effective measure. To support his argument, author presents the evidence of demand of drivers, that they mainly complain about uneven pavement and close lanes. So the expectation of the commuter can be made by repairing the Mathescam Bridge in the evening time, when traffic is low. But, current proposal has increase the toll tax by 50%, which is not at all in the interest of the driver. Though the argument has merits, because of weak assumption, lack of evidence and vague language, the argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed. A few of the flaws are as follows.
To begin with, the author assumes that the repairing of the Mathescam Bridge will solve the current problem of the bridge, which has uneven pavement and close lanes, and no need for a $12 million new bridge. However, the author has not mentioned any data that the repair cost will be much less the cost of the new bridge. If the repairing cost is much higher that $12 million, then the author argument will be weak.
Secondly, the author assumes that the repairing work can be done in the evening, when traffic is less. But, author fails to present any data that show the duration of completion the work. If the repair work takes 2 years to finish whereas the new Mathescam Bridge can be completed in 6 months. Then, the over all business loss for the both cities due to repair activity may be higher compare to the new bridge.
Lastly, the author claims that the current increase in toll tax will affect the transportation cost, which eventually effect the economy of both cites. There might be the possibility that after the establishment the new Mathescam Bridge, the mayor waives off the toll tax. But, the author argues the impact of the economical loss seeing the short time increase in toll. Moreover, there might be possibilities that the repairing of the bridge is not be cost effective if the cost near about $11 million. Then, the decision of new bridge is a good idea.
The argument, as written, is categorically unconvincing; the author could strengthen his argument if he provide few statistical data that cost of repair is very low and time take for the repairing activity is also low. Without these information, the argument is less persuasive.
To conclude, though the author has presented an interesting argument, but deeply flawed. Had the author provide the data as mentioned above, the argument can be mage stronger. Otherwise, the argument will remain unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 89, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...cing of Mathescam Bridge will be not be a effective measure. To support his argum...
^
Line 13, column 315, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...ut, the author argues the impact of the economical loss seeing the short time increase in ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 105, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'provides'.
Suggestion: provides
...hor could strengthen his argument if he provide few statistical data that cost of repai...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 228, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...repairing activity is also low. Without these information, the argument is less persuasive. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, whereas, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2137.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 437.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89016018307 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57214883401 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62097954946 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.434782608696 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 647.1 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.5718991665 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.9130434783 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21739130435 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.218282227539 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.0743258471296 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0701772020484 0% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.128457276422 0% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0628817314937 0% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.51 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 98.500998004 82% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.