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.
The author recommends that although consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill would be completely filled within five years, the author asserts that the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted. To support this recommendation, the author points out because our town's strongly guaranteed to recycle and the amount of recycled material will increase. This recommendation might seem logical and species, at the first glance, but the writer of this argument relies on a series of doubtful assumptions to support his claim that I will distinguish them below.
A threshold problem with the argument involves that the argument overlooks the fact that the correlation between population growth and the garbage disposal. In other words, it is possible that the population dramatically increased, as a result, even the amount of recycled material increased, it does not any affect the amount of disposal. Hence, the writer does not address complete details about the amount of the recycling, he cannot conclude that recycling is twice compared to past.
One more problem with the argument is that we are not informed about the survey's details. In fact, the author states that over 90 percent of respondents would do more recycling in the future based on the recent survey. There is not any information about the number of respondents, the situation of the survey, and so forth. Perhaps, this survey consists of special people who have a penchant for recycling only because they produce the recycled materials. Accordingly, because the writer does not bring the details about the survey, I simply cannot accept the author claim.
Another problem with this argument is that there is not any information about the new policy for increasing the charges of pickup of other households. In fact, we cannot confide this policy owing to some reasons. Firstly, if the government established it, probably it causes people to make widespread complaints, and subsequently, numerous unsatisfied people force the government to change it. Secondly, we cannot be sure about what happens when the policy runs. Maybe, people do not have any problem to increase the charges. Hence, because we cannot predict the future and the author only conclude based on some assumptions about new policy, this assertion cannot be valid.
To put a nutshell, despite the argument suffers from numerous flaws, we cannot completely accept the author claim or refuse it, unless the author provides more information about mentioned flaws. Without them, the argument is unconvincing and implausible.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The author recommends that although consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill would be completely filled within five years, the author asserts that the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.
Description: The word last is not usually used as a verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Suggestion: Refer to last
Sentence: There is not any information about the number of respondents, the situation of the survey, and so forth.
Error: forth Suggestion: No alternate word
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. suppose we have 'information about the number of respondents, the situation of the survey, and so forth', still we need to argue.
the correct arguments:
we need to know the percentage of recycled material, if the percentage is pretty small, even 100% people do recycling, it will not 'last for considerably longer than predicted'. or maybe people have already had a good life style for recycling.
argument 3 -- OK.
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 2135 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.195 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.664 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 47 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.506 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.563 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.171 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...im that I will distinguish them below. A threshold problem with the argument in...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, but, first, firstly, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, in fact, as a result, in other words
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: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2198.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34793187348 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74769665466 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506082725061 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 666.9 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.8498414077 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.684210526 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6315789474 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.128770582235 0.218282227539 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0387079349498 0.0743258471296 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0517540130255 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0719359272686 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052354553796 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
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: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.