Studies show that in 70 percent of traffic accidents, at least one driver involved is less than 10 miles from home when the accident occurs. This statistic indicates that drivers have a tendency to drive incautiously when they are close to home, probably because familiar surroundings give them a false sense of security. Thus, the places where people feel safest are the places where they are in fact at greatest risk of serious injury.
The arguer of the above argument wants to recommend that the places that people feel are safest are in fact places where people are at greatest risk of getting serious injury. There are various arguments presented by the arguer in support of his stand. The first argument in support of the arguer’s recommendation is the study which indicates that in 70 percent of traffic accidents at least one of the drivers is almost as near as 10 miles from his home. The other argument which arguer states to further make his argument strong is the statistic which shows that when the drivers enter familiar surroundings they get a false sense of security. This false sense of security makes them careless, thus causing accidents.
The first argument presented by the arguer is ambiguous in regard to the studies which show that one of the driver in 70 percent of the accidents is as near as 10 miles from home. The arguer has not mentioned the period when the studies were done. There is a possibility that the studies are about a certain area which was quite accident prone. The arguer has not mentioned the place and may be the law and order of the place was not strict enough to control traffic rules. The arguer has also not mentioned the age of drivers as very young and very old drivers are more prone to accidents. It is also quite possible that in the area where the studies were conducted maximum offices or the work places were in the radius of 10 miles. In absence of the relevent facts it is very difficult to understand and accept the arguments made by the arguer.
The arguer in his second argument states negligence on the part of drivers as he reaches his familiar surrounding because it gives the feeling of security. This argument is absolutely baseless. The arguer has mentioned about the statistics which indicate this observation but the arguer has not mentioned the exact number or percentage of drivers who felt so. This is an assumption and exact figures are not given.
The assumptions made by the arguer are very misleading. The arguer has not mentioned that the studies conducted were of a particular place which was more accident prone due to the various reasons like merging traffic, blind turns, hilly area or bad roads. In addition the arguer has stated that the driver who is close to his home is more reckless than the driver who is far from his home. The arguer has also not mentioned whether all the accident victims inflicted with serious injuries were the ones who were closer to their homes or the ones who were far were also inflicted with serious injuries. Again in all the cases of accidents reported in the surveys whether the drivers who were near to their homes were the ones who caused accidents is not mentioned.
The arguer must present us with the more precise and acceptable facts. The studies and statistics should be more relevant and accurate to make the arguer’s stand stronger.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-22 | Tanmay Shikhare | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-18 | Tanmay Shikhare | 78 | view |
| 2020-07-22 | yash99 | 60 | view |
- The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area Although only a small percentage of the land wi 78
- The real talent of a popular musician cannot accurately be assessed until the musician has been dead for several generations so that his or her fame does not interfere with honest assessment 58
- We learn our most valuable lessons in life from struggling with our limitations rather than from enjoying our successes 66
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 54
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 50
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2380 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.648 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.347 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.584 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 260, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
...lind turns, hilly area or bad roads. In addition the arguer has stated that the driver w...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, so, thus, at least, in addition, in fact, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.6327345309 188% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 13.6137724551 198% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2426.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.73828125 5.12650576532 92% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.40525737948 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.3984375 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 762.3 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.5675369 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.47826087 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2608695652 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.86956521739 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 19.0 6.88822355289 276% => 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: 0.264346888653 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085877298012 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100267981109 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147404213784 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0716070049282 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.5 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.