The author of the argument has seemed to have jumped to a conclusion too quickly without accurately examining all the facts. The author seems blinded by the sole assumption that all the accidents caused on Balmer Island are solely due to moped rentals. However, it is naive to believe that this is the only factor that has caused moped accidents.
The author claims that the population increases to 100,000 in the months of summer. Assuming that this because Balmer Island might be a favourite tourist spot, it surely would be necessary to reduce the number of accidents caused by these mopeds. The author suggests that rental companies should reduce the number of mopeds they give out on a lease. However, this might pose a serious threat to the people who use these rental services to travel. Without stating whether the reduction in the number of moped rentals would be compensated by an increase in other forms of public transport or whether people would actually appreciate this reduction in rental services, the argument remains severely flawed.
In addition to that, the author never elaborates on what kind of accidents usually do happen on Balmer Islands. He simply suggests that to reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, mopeds should be taken out of the picture. However, there could be a plethora of reasons as to why these accidents are happening in the first place. Maybe there is a lack of walking space for the pedestrians that is, maybe there aren’t enough footpaths which could’ve also lead to accidents involving pedestrians and mopeds. If that is the case, then a reduction in the number of moped rentals would not reduce the number of accidents. In that case, the solution would be making adequate footpaths.
Similarly, there could be a number of reasons that could have caused these accidents. Reasons such as a lack of functioning traffic signals or the public’s general disregard for traffic rules or lack of adequate crossings and intersections/diversions or the fact that the rental services provided by the rental companies are too poor could all lead to accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians. Furthermore, all these problems wouldn’t be solved by a simple reduction in the number of moped rentals. To quickly conclude that moped accidents could be reduced by a decrease in moped rentals would be a grave misunderstanding if all these other probable reasons are taken into account.
The author also mentions that similar effects in reduction of accidents were observed on the neighbouring island of Seaville. However, no details are mentioned regarding the neighbouring island. Is the island of Seaville exactly similar to that of Balmer Island? If no, how are the same implementation of reduction in moped rentals going to help Balmer Island? The lack of adequate data regarding the similarities of the two islands poses another threat to the author’s reasoning and conclusion.
To conclude, had the author provided data regarding the alternate probable factors that could’ve lead to accidents involving pedestrians and mopeds and whether the island of Seaville is exactly similar to the island in question, the author’s argument cannot be taken seriously. If the reasoning of the argument is to be strengthened the author must take into consideration the aforementioned points.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 289, 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.
...s;s argument cannot be taken seriously. If the reasoning of the argument is to be ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, similarly, so, then, as to, in addition, kind of, such as, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2847.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 542.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25276752768 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96901077567 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.40221402214 0.4932671777 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 882.9 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 10.0 4.99550561798 200% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.4746647917 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.88 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.68 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.68 5.21951772744 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 5.13820224719 350% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.25684251563 0.243740707755 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0872843644071 0.0831039109588 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0645653345611 0.0758088955206 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147865018234 0.150359130593 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.042727261206 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 100.480337079 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => 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.