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 has gone down significantly.
The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the majority of the population in Centerville is composed of youngsters or working professionals who use mobile phones while walking in the same way how people used to do in Middletown, rendering the conclusion, that imposing a ban on using cell phones while walking, invalid.
The argument fails to provide any justification that the Middletown and Centerville have similar kind of people who have the habit of using mobile phones while walking on the sideways. Even if we assume that they use mobile phones while walking, we are not assured that the crimes happen only because the usage of mobile phones as it has got nothing to do with the other crimes like assaults and property damage.
The argument claims without evidence that the crimes happen only because of the usage of mobile phones while walking. Even if they use phones while walking, the pedestrian traffic might get slowed down to some extent but that does not assure that the pedestrians always bump into each other causing rage among the pedestrians.
The argument is still lacking because it does not provide information about how banning of cell phones in Middletown has reduced the number of sidewalk crimes as cell phones alone are not the only reason for crimes like assaults and property damage to happen. Furthermore, it is assumed that a similar ban on cell phones in Centerville will also reduce the crimes without knowing the exact reason behind these kind of sidewalk crimes in Centerville.
Because the argument makes several unwanted assumptions regarding the cause of sidewalk crimes in Centerville by comparing with those in Middletown, it fails to make a convincing case that imposing a similar kind of ban on cell phones in Centerville will reduce the number of sidewalk crimes.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 9 15
No. of Words: 311 350
No. of Characters: 1555 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.199 4.7
Average Word Length: 5 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.571 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 81 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 34.556 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.736 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.496 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.765 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.263 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 405, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this kind' or 'these kinds'?
Suggestion: this kind; these kinds
...without knowing the exact reason behind these kind of sidewalk crimes in Centerville. B...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, if, regarding, so, still, while, kind of, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1587.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 311.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10289389068 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19942759058 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64342711448 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 204.123752495 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.453376205788 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 9.0 19.7664670659 46% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 34.0 22.8473053892 149% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 82.4465408538 57.8364921388 143% => OK
Chars per sentence: 176.333333333 119.503703932 148% => OK
Words per sentence: 34.5555555556 23.324526521 148% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.0 5.70786347227 158% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 0.0 8.20758483034 0% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0742276159015 0.218282227539 34% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0366012054786 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.034893180783 0.0701772020484 50% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0494963818854 0.128457276422 39% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0376030921831 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.9 14.3799401198 138% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 28.51 48.3550499002 59% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.7 12.197005988 145% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 66.0 98.500998004 67% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.6 11.1389221557 140% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.