The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville:
"Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down significantly."
The petitioner's case as presented to Centerville's city council leaves the reader searching for evidence that is not present in the above text. The argument is rife with assumptions, seemingly without bases, which leaves copious amounts of information to be desired before coming to the conclusion that cell phones are to blame for the recent increase in crime on Centerville's sidewalks.
Perhaps the most pertinent piece of information, among the many pieces missing, is exactly how much crime has increased. The petition does not specify where there was one more assault than the previous three years, or 1000 assaults more. Without these crucial statistics, the argument remains that absolutely no action is needed because the increase in crime is so insignificant and may even be consistent with rising crime trends that were already present in the city.
The petition's main compelling force for the banning of cell phones utilizes the example of Middletown. The author, however, fails to bolster this argument by not comparing the similarities, or differences, between Middletown and Centerville. Middletown may be a more bucolic and pastoral town compared to the latter city in question. If Middletown were very spread out, the town's citizens may exclusively drive instead of walk. Thus, there have been no complaints regarding their cell phone ban because it affects a negligible percentage of the population.
The petitioner purports cell phones are to blame in their entirety rather than only certain functions of cell phones. For example, the author uses the phrase, "...people texting... are more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers." If people texting are the primary concern, then would any benefit lie in banning cell phones entirely as opposed to texting itself? Surely people talking on their phone do not have an increased likelihood of wandering into the road or inadvertently knocking over children.
The affected streets are also not specified. Is the crime increase a city-wide dilemma or only present on a single street? The author does not purport a cell phone ban specifically on a single road which they may use often. They merely propose a city-wide ban rather than focusing on a single area that may contain the entirety of the problem.
Ultimately, the petitioner makes it very difficult to espouse with the solution of a city-wide cell phone ban, primarily due to a lack of evidence, specificity, and statistics. The petition entirely devitalizes it's argument by being elusive of these elements and thus, creating an argument which is void of all reason or logic.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, thus, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.4196629213 48% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 11.3162921348 80% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 33.0505617978 51% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 58.6224719101 90% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2215.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 422.0 442.535393258 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24881516588 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53239876712 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84091599061 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.552132701422 0.4932671777 112% => OK
syllable_count: 704.7 704.065955056 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 6.24550561798 16% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2297471624 60.3974514979 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.75 118.986275619 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1 23.4991977007 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.1 5.21951772744 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 10.2758426966 29% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0979897203768 0.243740707755 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0302076847573 0.0831039109588 36% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0262030196861 0.0758088955206 35% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0512003214877 0.150359130593 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187642722913 0.0667264976115 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 100.480337079 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.