The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
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.
There has been a push on the construction of cycle track along the Blue highways due to the severe traffics during rush hours. The reasons and assumptions that the argument is based on seem operative and legitimate. However, without more convincing evidence and relevant examples, the argument should not be followed.
First, the author did not agree the proposal of building a new lane of traiffc due to the fact that the same solution exacerbated the problem in Green highway. However, the argument did not indicate whether the constructure and surronding area of two highways are same and. Because oftentimes,traffic jams depend on whether there are many residental areas and shopping malls. If the blue highways is different from green highways by all means, there is a possibilty that additional lane of traffic might work better than what author expecte. More importantly, the argument did not have more relevant information on why the first attempts did not succeed. Becasue if the faults that led to fiasco in green hightway was avoided in the constrcution of blue ones, there would be no need to build cycle track since motorway distribute the traffics faster and more efficient.
Second, the argument recommonded to build up a cycle track alongside the current traffic lane, given the fact that there are many residents keen on cycling. The cause of traffic jams is variious, and there is no significant evidence that indicates all the cars on the highways owned by local residents. If the local residents did not own many cars, the recommondation would be everything but useless or even exacerbate the problem by adding more traffics.
Third, supposing the argument based on the fact that the cars on the traffic lane owned by surrounding residents. A cylist zealot does not necessarily means that he/she would be willing to cycle thirty miles from home to where they work. Particularly, people less likely ride to work in a tough weather. If not many residents had positive response to the cycle tracks, author's suggestion would not solve the problem by any chance.
In conclusion, the statement made couple of points on the reason that comparing author urge to build cycle routines instead of traditional traffic lanes. Yet it does not provide convincing evidence and progress categorical investigations. Without these evidences and procedures, the result that the recommondation expect will be all but impossible.
Sentence: If the blue highways is different from green highways by all means, there is a possibilty that additional lane of traffic might work better than what author expecte.
Description: The fragment the blue highways is not usually followed by is
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace is with are
Sentence: Becasue if the faults that led to fiasco in green hightway was avoided in the constrcution of blue ones, there would be no need to build cycle track since motorway distribute the traffics faster and more efficient.
Description: The fragment motorway distribute the is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace distribute with verb, past tense
Sentence: First, the author did not agree the proposal of building a new lane of traiffc due to the fact that the same solution exacerbated the problem in Green highway.
Error: traiffc Suggestion: traffic
Sentence: However, the argument did not indicate whether the constructure and surronding area of two highways are same and.
Error: surronding Suggestion: surrounding
Error: constructure Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Because oftentimes,traffic jams depend on whether there are many residental areas and shopping malls.
Error: residental Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: If the blue highways is different from green highways by all means, there is a possibilty that additional lane of traffic might work better than what author expecte.
Error: possibilty Suggestion: possibility
Error: expecte Suggestion: expected
Sentence: Becasue if the faults that led to fiasco in green hightway was avoided in the constrcution of blue ones, there would be no need to build cycle track since motorway distribute the traffics faster and more efficient.
Error: hightway Suggestion: highway
Error: constrcution Suggestion: construction
Sentence: Second, the argument recommonded to build up a cycle track alongside the current traffic lane, given the fact that there are many residents keen on cycling.
Error: recommonded Suggestion: recommended
Sentence: The cause of traffic jams is variious, and there is no significant evidence that indicates all the cars on the highways owned by local residents.
Error: variious Suggestion: various
Sentence: If the local residents did not own many cars, the recommondation would be everything but useless or even exacerbate the problem by adding more traffics.
Error: recommondation Suggestion: recommendation
Sentence: Without these evidences and procedures, the result that the recommondation expect will be all but impossible.
Error: recommondation Suggestion: recommendation
flaws:
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2 (Hi, leave some minutes check out spellings)
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 12 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 397 350
No. of Characters: 1993 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.464 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.02 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.691 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.895 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.585 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5