On Balmer Island, where mopeds serve as a popular form of transportation, the population increases to 100,000 during the summer months. To reduce the number of accidents involving mopeds and pedestrians, the town council of Balmer Island should limit the number of mopeds rented by the island's moped rental companies from 50 per day to 25 per day during the summer season. By limiting the number of rentals, the town council will attain the 50 percent annual reduction in moped accidents that was achieved last year on the neighboring island of Seaville, when Seaville's town council enforced similar limits on moped rentals.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument recommends that to decrease the quantity of the moped accidents on the Balmer Island, the number of the rental moped must be halved. This argument reveals examples of leap of faiths and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing.
First of all, the author assumes that as the population enhances to 100,000 during the summer months, the identical condition will be repeated by this summer. However, this assumption is based on the vague and holistic statistic. Maybe for this summer, there will not increase for the sake of some inclement weather condition, or the expensive cost of this island. In this case, by the decline of the population of tourists to the island, the number of moped usages will decrease too. As a result, if there are no sufficient amounts of the moped for the transportation, the island will lose its current customers too. The argument could have been much fortified if it explicitly stated the census of the next summer population that it would increase to 100,000 as the previous seasons.
Secondly, the writer posits that the primary blame for the accident is the moped. As there is no cogent evidence to advocate this presumption, this claim is skeptical. Perhaps the significant factor of these accidents is the inaccurate traffic rules. Or maybe there is no any well-defined walk side for the pedestrians inasmuch as they do not pass through their own path, it leads to the accident and by the decrement of the mopeds, there will be no alteration in the number of the accidents. Either scenario would provide an alternative explanation for this incident far apart the moped. Therefore, the argument could have been more solidified if it had provided clues that the main reason for the accidents is mopeds.
Finally, the author surmises that the Balmer Island and Seaville's town are similar in entire aspects, and what is useful in the Seaville's town will present the same function in the Balmer Island. Also, since by the declining of the moped usage to half, there are fewer accidents in the Seaville's town, the decrement in the Blamer Island will demonstrate the unique outcome. Nevertheless, since these two places are not similar in any angle, there is no guarantee that the result will be same. For instance, the Balmer is an island, and it has less traffic rather than the Seaville's town. In this case, even the main cause of the accident is the moped; there should be another option to address this problem beyond the elimination of some mopeds.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the reasons above- mentioned and is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the writer clearly said that there would be an increase in the population on summer, as usual, the real reason of the accident is the moped, and the Seaville's town and Balmer Island are identical. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 270, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...curate traffic rules. Or maybe there is no any well-defined walk side for the pede...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'for instance', 'as a result', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.238434163701 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.122775800712 0.15541462614 79% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0729537366548 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0444839857651 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.017793594306 0.0272364105082 65% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129893238434 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0231316725979 0.0416121511921 56% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67821763877 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.017793594306 0.026700313972 67% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.17615658363 0.113004496875 156% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0302491103203 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00355871886121 0.0127820249294 28% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3007.0 2731.13054187 110% => OK
No of words: 505.0 446.07635468 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.95445544554 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74048574033 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.366336633663 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.267326732673 0.287650121315 93% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.186138613861 0.208842608468 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.112871287129 0.135150697306 84% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67821763877 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 207.018472906 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451485148515 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 51.7728980873 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.9565217391 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2698953833 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.739130435 141.986410481 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9565217391 23.2022227129 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.739130434783 0.724660767414 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 48.6891950065 51.9672348444 94% => OK
Elegance: 2.11538461538 1.8405768891 115% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.608236488549 0.441005458295 138% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.121573442782 0.135418324435 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0855976582076 0.0829849096947 103% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.626812358198 0.58762219726 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159997436796 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.288264414685 0.193483328276 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135474324686 0.0970749176394 140% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.65408523173 0.42659136922 153% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.015208758673 0.0774707102158 20% => Paragraphs are so close to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.480273896844 0.312017818177 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489130999557 0.0698173142475 70% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 17.0 6.87684729064 247% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 16.0 5.36822660099 298% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.