bicycle
In the given memo, it is recommended that the government should concentrate on educating people about bicycle safety and less on requiring bicyclists to use helmets to decrease the number of serious injuries. While it seems plausible at some points, it relies on several questionable assumptions.
First of all, the author assumes that the number of people who use helmets increased, however, it may not be the case. A percent increase does not necessarily mean that an increase in numbers. It is possible that the total number of bicyclists increased surprisingly and thus today the rest 20 percent of people who still do not wear helmets might be bigger than the number of people who did not use helmets ten years ago. It seems reasonable that there are more chances of bicycle-related accidents because there are more people who do not use helmets. Thus, further evidence such as accurate statistical data about bicycle related accidents are required to evaluate the author's claim.
Furthermore, the author's argument is based on the assumption that an increase in bicycle helmet usage led to an increase in accidents because bicyclists take more risks, however, it is not warranted. It is possible that there might be other causes that increased the number of accidents such as intensified traffic due to the increased number of bicyclists, poor road condition and so on. Accordingly, the author should consider other factors could affect the number of accidents.
Even though the author was proven right on the above points, it still depends on questionable assumption that wearing helmets increased the number of serious injuries. The author did not present any relevant data indicating seriousness of injuries. increased the number of bicycle-related accidents does not mean that the seriousness increased as well. It is possible that thanks to the helmet, even though the number of accidents increased, the serious injuries might be decreased. Therefore, the evidence pertaining to the seriousness of accidents should be provided to assess the author's argument.
- bicycle 50
- The author argues that governments should address current issues in advance rather than future problems. While it is plausible in some cases, it may not always be the case. 50
- 11.Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. 33
- university 75
- What would you change to improve your health?1. Food quality2. The amount of exercise in your life3. The amount of stress in your life 76
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 330 350
No. of Characters: 1709 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.262 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.179 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.815 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 74 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.558 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.425 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.602 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e authors claim. Furthermore, the authors argument is based on the assumption tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 250, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Increased
...ata indicating seriousness of injuries. increased the number of bicycle-related accidents...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 584, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...idents should be provided to assess the authors argument.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
accordingly, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, well, while, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1757.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 330.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32424242424 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26214759535 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87917700719 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.448484848485 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.2112942047 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.133333333 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53333333333 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131973117067 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.058805362143 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841756256943 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0992467075261 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.026261296746 0.0628817314937 42% => 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: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.