The letter to Balmer Island Gazetta states the increase of population in the island is leading to several accidents involving mopeds. Thus, making a conclusion that the mopeds rented by the island companies should be cut short, which would result in decrease in accidents as a similar method has achieved success in Seavilla. However, the assumption and the evidence stated is not cogent and is considered to be a flawed one because of the following reasons.
Firstly, the reduction in the accidents in the Seaville might be because of many factors. The population of Seavilla might not be the same as Balmer island. The increase and decrease in the population would affect the percentage mentioned. The statement is not backed by any values or statistics to prove this point to be true. May be the people who visited Seaville were fewer resulting in fewer accidents. Secondly, the number of pedestrians would have also been less than those of the Balmer Island. May be the people of Seaville used other means of transport. There are many questions which are not answered and the assumptions are lacking evidence.
Additionally, the statement doesn’t mention the geography of Seaville or Balmer Island. If the area of Seaville was comparatively larger than Balmer, which means people are widely spreading and less prone to accidents. Another factor is the tourist attractions is Seaville might be less than compared to Balmer resulting is less tourist. If this is true then fewer people will be on the island which might have also contributed to less number of accidents.
It is stated that the decrease in the rentals of mopeds from 50 per day to 25 will reduce the number of accidents. While, this assumption is not compelling and has not strong evidence of success. If the people who drive the mopeds are not skilled drivers then, this might not reduce the number of accidents even after reducing the moped use. In addition, the percentage decrease in accidents in Seaville was annual. It can also be said that the accidents haven’t reduced but, the population has reduced after the summer which means that the method wasn’t successful.
To sum, the authors assumption is not cogent and has not taken many factors in to consideration which would affect the results. The geographical differences were not mentioned and the statements lack evidence and are not strong enough to prove this method would be successful. The proposal needs to be studied further consider all the factors involved.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 241, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... would affect the percentage mentioned. The statement is not backed by any values o...
^^^
Line 3, column 333, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (May) must be used with a third-person verb: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...ics to prove this point to be true. May be the people who visited Seaville were fe...
^^
Line 3, column 508, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (May) must be used with a third-person verb: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
...ss than those of the Balmer Island. May be the people of Seaville used other means...
^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ethod wasn’t successful. To sum, the authors assumption is not cogent and has not ta...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'while', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.251111111111 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.188888888889 0.15541462614 122% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0644444444444 0.0836205057962 77% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0622222222222 0.0520304965353 120% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00444444444444 0.0272364105082 16% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.111111111111 0.125424944231 89% => OK
Participles: 0.06 0.0416121511921 144% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.68054717171 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0288888888889 0.026700313972 108% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.124444444444 0.113004496875 110% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0311111111111 0.0255425247493 122% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0177777777778 0.0127820249294 139% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2509.0 2731.13054187 92% => OK
No of words: 415.0 446.07635468 93% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04578313253 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.397590361446 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.277108433735 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.209638554217 0.208842608468 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134939759036 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68054717171 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 207.018472906 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.428915662651 0.469332199767 91% => OK
Word variations: 45.8782833211 52.1807786196 88% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0434782609 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.6559657383 57.7814097925 57% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.086956522 141.986410481 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0434782609 23.2022227129 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.608695652174 0.724660767414 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 45.7543216344 51.9672348444 88% => OK
Elegance: 1.65217391304 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.552157019622 0.441005458295 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.117509154642 0.135418324435 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0783358606454 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.572986579629 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.130170640218 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.254179019948 0.193483328276 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123678495856 0.0970749176394 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.502706372351 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0870971596315 0.0774707102158 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.409150367463 0.312017818177 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0822988387652 0.0698173142475 118% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.