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' lob

Essay topics:

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.

The argument put forward by the author is regarding the traffic snarls faced by the commuters on blue highway and a measure of including a bicycle lane is being proposed. However, the proposed measure might not be a good idea after all without considering a few key issues.

The motorists’ lobby has proposed the addition of an additional lane on the highway but the author counteracts it by providing evidence against it which is not so compelling if observed acutely. The author mentions that the addition of an extra lane on Green Highway resulted in worsening the traffic woes of the commuters. However, it was nowhere proved such with any supporting facts. The traffic on Green Highway might have taken a turn for the worse due to some other reasons like repair works on the roads that might have developed potholes. This might have forced the authorities to divert traffic or close a few of the lanes narrowing the road for the passage of the traffic.

Additionally, the width of Blue Highway is not mentioned in the argument. If the width is originally small, then adding an extra lane on the highway may go a long way in easing the commute. Also, the roads on Blue Highway might be of better quality compared to its counterpart. Even this might go against the assumption of the author that adding a lane will make the traffic situation worse.

Furthermore, the author proposes to add a bicycle lane on Blue Highway as a measure to ease the traffic flow. However, the feasibility of using bicycles is dependent on many factors such as the distance between the city center and the suburbs, the overall environment of the city etc. If the city center is at a distance say 25 kilometers, then it would become a very tiring ride for the cyclists leading to exhaustion even before reaching their destination which might lead to reduced efficiency among office goers and students. Also the climate plays an important role in the use of bicycles as a mode of transport. If the temperatures are too cold or too hot, it becomes difficult for the riders to commute in such an extreme climate. Thus, the proposal to add a bicycle lane requires immense scrutiny before implementing it.

Thus, the argument put forward by the author is specious and calls for proper reasoning before being implemented. Few extra details about the width and condition of the roads on both highways and an indication of the temperatures and overall environment might have helped the author put forward a strong proposal.

Votes
Average: 7 (3 votes)
Essay Categories

Comments

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- duplicated to argument 1

argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2031 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.723 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.583 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 147 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.922 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5