To reverse the deterioration of postal service, the government should raise the price of postage stamps. This solution will no doubt prove effective, since the price increase will generate larger revenues and will also reduce the volume of mail, thereby eliminating the strain on the existing system and contributing to improved morale.
The author concludes that to minimize the deterioration of postal service, the increase in postal stamps will be an effective measure. To support his conclusion, the author says that increase in price will reduce the volume of mails and eventually reduce the load on postal department that will help the department to work effectively. Although the argument has a few merits, because of weak assumption, lack of evidence and vague language make the argument unsubstantiated. Hence, deeply flawed.
Firstly, the author believes that deterioration of postal service is due to two reason - less price of the postal stamps and large volume of mails. However, author has failed to provide any evidence that only these two are the main reason for deterioration of postal service. There are several reasons that are not explored by the author. For instance, the working staff's salary and availability of work force, poor infrastructure of department may be the reasons for the deterioration. Without any sufficient evidence, it is hard to digest that increase in postal stamp will resolve the issue.
Secondly, the author also assumes that increase in postal stamps will reduce volume of mail. However, author has not given any evidence that decrease in volume will definitely happen after increase in postal rate. Moreover, author has not mentioned the rate of increase of price. For example, 1% increase in postal stamp of Rs. 2 will hardly make any sense for the customers. Therefore, had the author presented the argument with facts and figures, the argument could have been strengthened.
Lastly, the author says that increase in price will lead to volume reduction and will enhance the moral of the postal service team as the revenue of the department will increase. Nevertheless, author has not shown any direct relation with moral and revenue increase. Government may use this increased revenue in some other project instead using on postal department. If author can show some direct benefit to the postal department with increase in revenue, the argument would be stronger.
To conclude, although author presents interesting argument, due to various flaws mentioned above makes the argument less persuasive and deeply flawed. The author could have strengthen his position if he provides the supporting facts mentioned above.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 370 350
No. of Characters: 1909 1500
No. of Different Words: 166 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.386 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.159 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.619 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.02 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.119 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'staffs'' or 'staff's'?
Suggestion: staffs'; staff's
...y the author. For instance, the working staffs salary and availability of work force, ...
^^^^^^
Line 17, column 174, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...nd deeply flawed. The author could have strengthen his position if he provides the support...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1976.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34054054054 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74703408501 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472972972973 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.0178397718 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 98.8 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.28231863551 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1023080598 0.0743258471296 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106177859056 0.0701772020484 151% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.17726030694 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100411676151 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.