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.
From the letter to editor of Waymarsh Times, we can learn that the commuting situation in the town is awful currently. To deal with this issue, the author of the letter stated that Waymarsh council should appropriate the policy from Garville, which is to encourage people sharing rides. Nevertheless, the argument is comparatively weak as he need more pieces of evidence to support it feasible.
First, according to the author, the traffic situation has wax speedy in just three work. In order to solve this problem, the government should apply policy which is referenced to the Garville’s. Nevertheless, the discourse doesn’t seem to be tenable, as what leads to current traffic chaos isn’t mentioned. From the author’s statement, we can suggest that he or she believes a growing amount of vehicles driving on the road is the main factor. However, the reason why the traffic problem is so chaotic could be result of construction of public transportation system. If that is the reason for the traffic jam, a short tolerance is just what people in the town need, and policies which the author mentioned may not be necessary. Therefore, to apologize for his statement, the author need to give evidence that the traffic jam is not consequence of the construction or other factor but augmenting vehicle numbers.
Secondly, the reason why the writer recommend the council in Waymarsh to mimic the strategy in Garville is it seems to have some merits, and he believes that it can be apropos to this town. Nonetheless, as the policy has just been implemented for one year, the pros and cons are still unclear. It may be in fact that people in Garville don’t really like it. In addition, the situation in Garville may be really different to Waymarsh. It is save to take others ride in Garville but insane to do the same thing in Waymarsh. To persuade that the policy is effective, what evidence the writer need is a longer observation and comparison of situation between the two towns.
Lastly, in the letter, it seems that the writer believes appropriating policy from Garville is the best pill for Waymarsh. Nevertheless, why isn’t other alternatives, like developing a better public transportation system an option? The advantages may be greater than taking other peoples’ ride, since in can bring jobs and also reduce both the amount of pollutions and automobiles. The author definitely need more evidence to prove that there is no alternatives.
The reasons given above elucidate what kind of evidence the writer of the letter need to prove adoption of policy from Garville is the best way to deal with Waymarsh’s traffic problem.
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: 20 15
No. of Words: 445 350
No. of Characters: 2131 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.593 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.789 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.693 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.203 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 448, Rule ID: THERE_S_MANY[4]
Message: Did you mean 'there are no alternatives'?
Suggestion: there are no alternatives
...nitely need more evidence to prove that there is no alternatives. The reasons given above elucidate wh...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... prove that there is no alternatives. The reasons given above elucidate what kind...
^^^
Line 9, column 89, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...vidence the writer of the letter need to prove adoption of policy from Garville i...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, really, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, in addition, in fact, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2235.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06802721088 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94902470758 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480725623583 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 692.1 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.5420889255 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.428571429 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.04761904762 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.12298585162 0.218282227539 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0424613619844 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0478888906222 0.0701772020484 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0698158243756 0.128457276422 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.03788977927 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.