In the memorandum, the author concludes that West Egg's landfill will not get filled within five years which is predicted by the consultants. The author has come to such a conclusion based on the evidence of increasing public enthusiasm in recyling activities and because of the fact that residents of West Egg are recyling twice the amount of material than the previous years. While the claim drawn in the argument might ultimately prove valid, the author needs to provide three specific evidences to bolster its validity.
First of all, the author fails to provide any evidence about recyling done in the previous years in West Egg Town. Perhaps, West Egg citizens were not so aware about the advantages of recyling and its benefits and hence recyling done before the past two years maybe very minute. If such is the case then the increase in recyling is not much. For example, previously only 50 tons of waste were recycled and the waste generated by West Egg Town is thousands of tons so even if the recyling is doubled it will be 100 tons which is not a significant amount. If the above scenario is true then the argument that the landfill will last longer than 5 years does not hold water.
Second of all, evidence regarding other garbage picking service is not provided by the author. It is possible, that there can be other garbage picking service available in the town which will pickup garbage for the same amount and hence even if the current garbage picking service increases it charges for other household garbage, citizens will simply hire the one who is providing it for lower prices. Thus the argument that people will recycle more in order to neutralize the expenses of garbage pickup is not reliable and more evidence is needed to maintain the validity of the argument.
Lastly, the author presumes that people are giving their honest opinion in the survey. Maybe people in order to maintain their social image inflated their response regarding recycling and in reality they will not be recycling as much. There is a possibility that the respondents to the survey are not from West Egg Town, they simply thought that the survey is universal to all the people and filled it, consequently it proves the survey can be bogus and hence the survey cannot be considered reliable in order to display the town's commitment towards recyling in future. If the above cases is true the conclusion that West Egg Town's landfill will be sufficient for the waste generated in future does not hold merit.
In conclusion, while the author may not have evaluated the given situation of people's commitment towars recyling and lasting of landfill in future years in its entirety, the conclusion and information associated with it cannot be written off either. There is no smoke without fire and the author must have had compelling reasons to make such a strong conclusion, however, since the reasons have not been listed the argument as it stands cannot be said holistically.
More evidence is needed to make the given argument stronger.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 517 350
No. of Characters: 2481 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.768 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.799 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.425 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 179 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.722 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.999 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.337 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 264, Rule ID: BECAUSE_OF_THE_FACT_THAT[1]
Message: This phrase is redundant. Use simply 'because'.
Suggestion: because
...c enthusiasm in recyling activities and because of the fact that residents of West Egg are recyling twic...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 280, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...e the past two years maybe very minute. If such is the case then the increase in r...
^^
Line 2, column 555, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tons which is not a significant amount. If the above scenario is true then the arg...
^^
Line 3, column 404, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...e who is providing it for lower prices. Thus the argument that people will recycle m...
^^^^
Line 4, column 526, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'towns'' or 'town's'?
Suggestion: towns'; town's
...idered reliable in order to display the towns commitment towards recyling in future. ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 560, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...y the towns commitment towards recyling in future. If the above cases is true the conclus...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
consequently, first, hence, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2526.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 517.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88588007737 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76839952204 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.47702008006 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439071566731 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 801.0 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.5246873746 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.333333333 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.7222222222 23.324526521 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.270702786749 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0843939488044 0.0743258471296 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678775400692 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121933801609 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0674456322327 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.52 48.3550499002 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.67 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.