"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In the letter the editor argues that Waymarsh should follow the policy that Garvile City has implicated, to reduce commuting time on the road and pollution in the city. It seems convincing at first glance, however, some pieces of lack evidence leads me to question the reliability of the argument.
First, the members of the town council should take differences between 3 years ago and current year into account that there might be many chages while the time has passed, such as adverse weather condition in current year or floating population that increased in temporary. Those changes might aggra...
Subscribe as testbig VIP readers and get unlimited access to essays on the top list.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: First, the members of the town council should take differences between 3 years ago and current year into account that there might be many chages while the time has passed, such as adverse weather condition in current year or floating population that increased in temporary.
Error: chages Suggestion: changes
Sentence: Also, there should be evidence on the reason why the construction will distrupt the residential neighborhoods.
Error: distrupt Suggestion: disrupt
Sentence: It is not persuasive since the author gives convincing evidence on the argument that new consruction will surely disrupt the residential neighboorhoods.
Error: neighboorhoods Suggestion: neighborhoods
Error: consruction Suggestion: construction
Sentence: Finally, the author should not suggest Waymarsh to blidnly follow Garille's pollution policy that gives free gas coupon to those share their car with others.
Error: blidnly Suggestion: blindly
---------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 373 350
No. of Characters: 1891 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.395 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.07 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.651 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.893 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, second, so, then, therefore, thus, while, in addition, in summary, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1957.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 373.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.24664879357 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39467950092 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78280566337 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.495978552279 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 590.4 705.55239521 84% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1034731799 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.722222222 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7222222222 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05555555556 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0921365274401 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0295462192355 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0301191102843 0.0701772020484 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0554969239709 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0348148968053 0.0628817314937 55% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.