"Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh."
The editor’s letter argues that encourage people to share more rides on their way to work and providing them with coupons for free gas will significantly improve the current traffic and reduce pollution in Waymarsh, and he strengthen this argument by giving an example from a nearby city call Garville. However, there are many other evidences needed to support his argument.
The first piece of evidence is that the traffic condition in both Waymarsh and Garville are similar so that the policy can implemented in Waymarsh will get the same results as it does in Garville. Although these two cities are close to each other, the traffic and road arrangement might be different. Garville might be a smaller city, and people are willing to share rides as their destinations will be close to others’. Whearas, Waymarsh probably is a large city, and people don’t want to waste time driving other people to a place far away from where they are heading. Thus, if the editor has the evidence which shows that the traffic condition is similar in both cities, probably the legislator can enact the same policy of encourage people to share rides.
Secondly, although the pollution from Garville have dropped, we cannot track its cause solely to the sharing rides. If we have the evidence of the correlation between sharing rides and the decline of pollution, we may want to implement the policy to reduce pollution. Otherwise, there might be other reasons why the pollution decreased. For example, the government may have advocated or educated its citizens the idea of protecting the environment, and they automatically substitute riding bicycles or taking subways with driving. The pollution is thus decreased. If we have the evidence that show there is a cause and effect relationship between sharing rides and the decline in pollution, our suggestion of implementing new policy in Waymarsh would be more effective.
Finally, if there’s an evidence which showed that people in Garville are more willing to sharing rides than people in Waymarsh are, the editor’s argument would be weakened. As even though the local government can apply the same policy as Garville’s, its citizens would follow. People will still choose to drive to work as they consider the reward of sharing rides “unnecessary,” unimportant,” or “not attractive.”
The intention of implementing the same policy in Waymarsh as Garville’s was to reducing people’s commuting time and decrease pollutions, but there are many prerequisites needed. The government need to know whether the two cities have similar traffic conditions and road arrangement, and whether encourage sharing rides will result in decline of pollution, and whether its citizens are willing to follow the new policy. If all of these shows a supportive signal toward the new policy, the authority can enact it.
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. Every 66
- Claim The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models Reason Heroes and role models reveal a society s highest ideals Write a response in whic 83
- Claim The best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that the society chooses as its heroes or its role models Reason Heroes and role models reveal a society s highest ideals Write a response in whic 50
- Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based. Claim: the best way to understand the character of a society is to examine the character of the men and women that 66
- If a goal is worthy, then any means taken to attain it are justifiable.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yo 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 224, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'strengthens'.
...nd reduce pollution in Waymarsh, and he strengthen this argument by giving an example from...
Line 4, column 392, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '“' seems to be missing
...haring rides “unnecessary,” unimportant,” or “not attractive.” The intention of ...
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2406.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 461.0 441.139720559 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21908893709 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84411973823 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.457700650759 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 759.6 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 77.6148293073 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.666666667 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.6111111111 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0837446347357 0.218282227539 38% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0298801977209 0.0743258471296 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0283465735382 0.0701772020484 40% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0529241326763 0.128457276422 41% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0213091971249 0.0628817314937 34% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 462 350
No. of Characters: 2320 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.636 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.022 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.617 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.608 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.336 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5