"Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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.
By citing the fact that town’s residents have been recycling their wastes by twice than they did before past two years, and the result of the recent survey pointing the responses of 90 percent of the respondents willing to do more recycling in the future, the author has come to the conclusion that the space available in the West Egg’s Landfill would last for considerably longer time than what has been predicted by the consultant two years ago. At the first sight, the argument seems convincing; however, on closer inspection, several alternative explanations could be made which could seriously undermine the conclusion. The author should provide evidences regarding the issues discussed below in order to fully evaluate the argument.
First of all, the author fails to provide reliable information about the quantity of wastes that the town is producing each year and the amount of wastes they are recycling. Recycling of the waste materials twice in amount does not necessarily mean that the residents are recycling high quantity of waste materials. It is possible that before two years, the town used to recycle 4 percent of the wastes and now they are recycling 8 percent of materials which could not bring substantial change in the space available in the landfill. Further, the author fails to provide possible increase in the waste production due to the increase in residents in the town in order to substantiate the argument.
Secondly, the author cites that the charges for the household garbage pick-up would double from the next month, and prematurely assumes that the amount of recycled materials will increase substantially from the next month. However, this assumption falls short given the lack of evidence. It is possible that the charge of garbage pick-up is extremely low in town and doubling the charge will not bring a substantial change in it. If it is the case, then people are more likely to invest their time in their job for more lucre rather than playing with the garbage.
Thirdly, the author fails to provide reliable data information about the number of participants present in the survey to evaluate the argument. Though 90 percent sounds great quantity, it does not represent real scenarios of the study. It is possible that there were 10,000 residents in the town and only 3,000 people participated in the survey, then it will be only 2,700 people who stated that they will do more recycling of the waste materials. And we are not known about the intentions of rest of the 7,300 residents. The author needs to provide actual number of respondents in order to support his conclusion.
In sum, though the argument seems plausible, it lacks its persuasiveness due to its reliance upon several unwarranted assumptions. The author needs to provide reliable evidences regarding the issues discussed above. In the absence of such evidences, the argument remains dubious and cannot be reasonably evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Sentence: By citing the fact that town's residents have been recycling their wastes by twice than they did before past two years, and the result of the recent survey pointing the responses of 90 percent of the respondents willing to do more recycling in the future, the author has come to the conclusion that the space available in the West Egg's Landfill would last for considerably longer time than what has been predicted by the consultant two years ago.
Description: An adjective is not usually followed by a determiner, possessive
Suggestion: Refer to recycling and their
Description: A noun, singular, common is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to space and available
Description: An adjective is not usually followed by a noun, singular, proper, genitive
Suggestion: Refer to West and Egg's
Description: The word last is not usually used as a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to last
Sentence: It is possible that before two years, the town used to recycle 4 percent of the wastes and now they are recycling 8 percent of materials which could not bring substantial change in the space available in the landfill.
Description: The fragment are recycling 8 is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace recycling with adverb
Description: A noun, singular, common is not usually followed by an adjective
Suggestion: Refer to space and available
Sentence: Further, the author fails to provide possible increase in the waste production due to the increase in residents in the town in order to substantiate the argument.
Description: The word due is not usually used as a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to due
Sentence: If it is the case, then people are more likely to invest their time in their job for more lucre rather than playing with the garbage.
Description: The fragment , then people is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace then with adjective
Sentence: In sum, though the argument seems plausible, it lacks its persuasiveness due to its reliance upon several unwarranted assumptions.
Description: The word due is not usually used as a noun, singular, common
Suggestion: Refer to due
Sentence: Secondly, the author cites that the charges for the household garbage pick-up would double from the next month, and prematurely assumes that the amount of recycled materials will increase substantially from the next month.
Error: pick-up Suggestion: pickup
Sentence: It is possible that the charge of garbage pick-up is extremely low in town and doubling the charge will not bring a substantial change in it.
Error: pick-up Suggestion: pickup
Sentence: If it is the case, then people are more likely to invest their time in their job for more lucre rather than playing with the garbage.
Error: lucre Suggestion: lure
Sentence: In sum, though the argument seems plausible, it lacks its persuasiveness due to its reliance upon several unwarranted assumptions.
Error: unwarranted Suggestion: No alternate word
flaws:
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
Read a good grammar book.
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Minimum four paragraphs wanted
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 483 350
No. of Characters: 2409 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.688 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.988 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.617 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.421 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.897 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.328 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2459.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 483.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09109730849 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69548997232 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449275362319 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 746.1 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 84.1742026923 57.8364921388 146% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.421052632 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4210526316 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.57894736842 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.227338188858 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0539297620764 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856455289493 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118161742961 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104255757892 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.5 12.3882235529 222% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.