The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
"Two years ago, consultants predicted that West Egg's landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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.
At face value the reasons provided by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council regarding the issue of lack of requirement for extending the time for West Egg's landfill seems logical and sound, but under close scrutiny, it reveals that the arguments is fraud with numerous flaws.
In the first place, the chairperson indicates that the amount of recycled materials by residents have been increased twice as much as they did in previous years. For this claim, he does not provide any obvious proof that corroborates this comparison; therefore, it is difficult to judge whether the recycling of materials have had such significant improvement.
Secondly, citing that double augmentation of charges for pickup of other household garbage will result in more recycled material is ambiguous as there is no guarantee that adopting such policy may contribute to further recycling of materials.
In continuation, the author resorts to the result of a recent survey which proposes that the vast majority of the respondents advocate further recycling. Here, the author is required to clarify several issues such as the validity and credibility of the survey, the sampling methods to determine the statistical population and that people under what circumstances are willing to do more recycling; thus, unless these inquiries are ruled out, it is not sound to rely on the outcomes of a particular survey.
In consequence, merely relying such insufficient and weak reasons do not produce a cogent case that the landfill may not be filled in the near future. The author prior to making any prediction and judgment should take other measures into consideration. For instance, it is expected to describe the expenditure pattern of the local community which is strongly associated with the amount of garbage producing.
flaws:
No. of Words: 289 350
More content wanted for every argument. Look, there is only one sentence for one paragraph:
Secondly, citing that double augmentation of charges for pickup of other household garbage will result in more recycled material is ambiguous as there is no guarantee that adopting such policy may contribute to further recycling of materials.
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 9 15
No. of Words: 289 350
No. of Characters: 1488 1500
No. of Different Words: 174 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.123 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.149 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.81 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 113 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 89 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.644 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.736 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5