"Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime have gone down significantly."
In the passage, the author points out cell phone use as the main cause behind increases 'sidewalk rage' and he suggests that banning cellphone on the sidewalk is going to solve this problem as it worked for Midtown. However, his conclusion is based on some unclear and unwarranted assumptions, which are needed to be clarified to make his claim more acceptable and persuasive.
First of all, he states that cellphone use is the main culprit behind the problem. While it may be true that people use a cellphone while walking but it is not actually the main contributor to increased sidewalk rage. Maybe the population is too high while the sidewalks are not wide enough to accommodate a large number of people. so, during rush hour while most of the people are rushing to workplaces there may be some disruptions of normal traffic. If these are the case, then banning cell phone will not do any good to reduce 'sidewalk rage'. Thus, the author's prescribed solution to the problem would be invalid.
Secondly, he compares two regions, which, in reality, may not be comparable at all.
May be Middle town's sidewalk problem was actually due to increased cell phone usage but in the first region mentioned, this type of ban may not work. What if the first place mentioned is actually a tourist spot, most of the pedestrians are stopping or moving slowly to watch some beautiful buildings or natural views. Their excessive photo-taking with cameras may be actually causing the problem not the cell phone usage. If the two cities reasons behind 'sidewalk rage' are different then one's approach may not be relevant to the other. Then the authors claim will be greatly weakened.
Finally, The authors claim as if banning cellphone was the only cause that reduced sidewalk crime. There might be other factors that had more influences on reduced sidewalk rage than banning cellphone. May be authorities fined people who engaged in such activities or it may be the seasonal change that caused a reduction in sidewalk rage. Maybe the survey was done while it was winter and snowing heavily, most of the people were inside their houses, that consequently led to lower sidewalk crime.
The author needs to provide clearer and more scientific data-driven results to make his claim more persuasive. Further research in what is actually causing sidewalk rage may be needed that will provide enough data encompassing population density, traffic during rush hour and most importantly what percent of people actually use a cellphone while walking to make the author's claim hold water.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 429 350
No. of Characters: 2091 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.551 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.874 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.493 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.579 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.681 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'increases'' or 'increase's'?
Suggestion: increases'; increase's
...cell phone use as the main cause behind increases sidewalk rage and he suggests that bann...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 122, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... While it may be true that people use a cellphone while walking but it is not ac...
^^
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...alks are not wide enough to accommodate a large number of people. so, during rush hour while most...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 334, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: So
...o accommodate a large number of people. so, during rush hour while most of the peo...
^^
Line 11, column 423, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...g the problem not the cell phone usage. If the two cities reasons behind sidewalk ...
^^
Line 11, column 484, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...sons behind sidewalk rage are different then ones approach may not be relevant to th...
^^^^
Line 25, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to make the authors claim hold water.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2163.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 429.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04195804196 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54469237289 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475524475524 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4082678175 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.15 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.45 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.112142727663 0.218282227539 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424416468481 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0424147332622 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0654307507423 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0356356623645 0.0628817314937 57% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.