Prunty attempt to improve highway safety failed as the number of accidents remains unchanged. In addition, many drivers are still exceeding the speed limit. Instead of lowering the speed limit on the highway from 55 to 45, Prunty County should have followed the same road improvement done by Butler County five years ago as Butler County has 25 fewer percent in accident than they were 5 years ago.
The author claims that Prunty County’s attempted to improve highway safety failed as the number of accidents remains unchanged and many drivers were exceeding the speed limit imposed by Prunty County. Instead of lowering the speed limit on the highway from 55 to 45, the author believe Prunty County should have followed the same road improvement done by Butler County five years ago if Prunty County want to improve highway safety as Butler County has 25 fewer percent in accident than they were 5 years ago. Ignoring whether the author is correct in this regard, the arguments given by the author is not logically sound. The author assumes the approaches done by Butler County would have worked on Prunty County just because it worked before without any real evidence. Furthermore, the author attempts to undermine the effect of speed limit is not entirely true due to the lack of empirical data.
First, the author assumes that just because Prunty County works on increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections had reduced the number of accidents by 25% compared to five years ago, that it would also reduce the number of accidents in Prunty County’s as well. This might not always be the case. Prunty County highway road condition might already are in good shape already, and the attempts to improve the already well-made highway would not lead to more safety highway. There is no direct evidence that suggests that Prunty County’s would gain the same benefit Butler County had gain from improving the highway. If the author had explains more on this regard, it would have bolstered his claims.
Also, the author states that imposing a speed limit in Prunty County’s highway is not effective. The author uses the number of accidents remains unchanged as an evidence for the policy’s ineffectiveness. However, this evidence shown by the author can not be taken into account. We have to consider the condition of accidents on the highway on the previous years as well. It might be the case that the number of accidents prior of the speed limit is actually increasing. If this were true, then it would greatly undermine the author claims, as the speed limit policy is actually effective. The author should have added more evidence on the ineffectiveness of the speed limit on Prunty County highway.
In addition, the author points out that many drivers were exceeding the speed limit, hoping to prove that the speed limit were ignored by the drivers. Nevertheless, the author failed shows the impact of these drivers who were ignoring the speed limit. The author didn’t show the exact number of drivers who were exceeding the speed limit, and whether the number remains the same after the policy or not. If the number of drivers who exceed the speed limit decreased, then the speed limit imposed by Prunty County actually was effective. The author attempts to prove that the speed limit is not effective by showing that there are some drivers ignoring the speed limit, but this is not logically sound. Having more evidence on the magnitude of drivers ignoring the speed limit would have bolster the author claim.
In conclusion, the author attempts to debase the plan to improve the highway safety failed due to the author’s failure to show how Butler County’s plan five years ago would have worked in Prunty County as well. The author could have given more information about the similarity in the two County, and the shared situation the two were in. In addition, the author failed to proof that lowering the speed limit is actually ineffective. While the author gives the evidence of the same number of accidents and the fact that many drivers still ignored the speed limit, both of the evidence is flawed. The first evidence failed to consider the past data and just assume that the policy is not effective. The second evidence is too vague and does not give any valuable details that prove the ineffectiveness of the speed limit. Thus, the author failed to proof that Prunty County should have imposed the road improvement project.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
1. the introduction and conclusion are too long.
2. the arguments are somehow wordy
3. the argument 2 and argument 3 are duplicated.
----------------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/attempt-improve-hi…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 689 350
No. of Characters: 3346 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.123 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.856 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.314 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 259 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.967 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.988 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.633 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.405 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.54 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.168 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 836, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...thor attempts to undermine the effect of speed limit is not entirely true due to ...
^^
Line 3, column 67, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that just because Prunty County works on increasing lane widths, resurfacing roug...
^^
Line 7, column 793, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'bolstered'.
Suggestion: bolstered
...ers ignoring the speed limit would have bolster the author claim. In conclusion, the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, second, so, still, then, thus, well, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3460.0 2260.96107784 153% => OK
No of words: 688.0 441.139720559 156% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02906976744 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.12149920406 4.56307096286 112% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.50174188911 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.341569767442 0.468620217663 73% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1072.8 705.55239521 152% => 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: 19.0 8.76447105788 217% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.916846785 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.333333333 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.9333333333 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.525958182085 0.218282227539 241% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.175303121997 0.0743258471296 236% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.126804250405 0.0701772020484 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.352819936081 0.128457276422 275% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0806561205649 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.18 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.