The recommendation of adding a bicycle lane instead of a motorist’s lane is based on the assumption that the most of the commuters of Blue Highway will choose to use bicycle, which will help in reducing the rush-hour traffic. Also, the argument of expecting increased traffic on Blue Highway due to availability of bicycle lane needs to be explained furthermore. Both the recommendation and the argument can be weakened if they fail to provide substantial answers to the following questions.
First of all, one question that argument needs to answer is, how many commuters taking the Blue Highway are from nearby area? The opponents claim that area residents being keen cyclist will choose the bicycle lane and therefore would result in decreased rush-hour traffic. But what about the commuters from other areas? If the number of usual commuters on Blue Highway are from distant areas, they would still choose a vehicle and this may not result in significant decrease in traffic on the road. Furthermore, the argument doesn’t state the time of increased traffic on Green Highway. If the addition of new lane has caused increased traffic jams on it, are these jams in rush-hour timings? The commuters are specifically complaining about the rush-hour traffic and if the traffic jams do not reflect the traffic condition in rush-hour timings, the premise of opponents’ suggestion doesn’t hold water.
Furthermore, the argument doesn’t state the number of cyclists that already use cycles for their commute. If almost all of them already use bicycles, the traffic on the highway may not decrease at all. The opponents of the proposal need to inform the statistics of current bicyclists from the area and needs to survey the vehicle commuters of Blue Highway to understand their choice of using bicycles for commute.
If the opponents of the proposal fail to answer the above questions with plausibility, it seriously weakens their stand and a bicycle lane may not be the solution for the issue.
- People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 33
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore a chain of movie rental stores quot Because of declining profits we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore 039 s ten movie rental stores Raising prices is not a good opti 73
- Commuters complain that increased rush hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time The favored proposal of the motorists lobby is to widen the highway adding an additional lane of traffic But last 60
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 330 350
No. of Characters: 1632 1500
No. of Different Words: 142 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.262 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.945 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.692 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.571 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.533 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.385 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, if, may, so, still, therefore, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1687.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 327.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15902140673 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78705872236 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 151.0 204.123752495 74% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.461773700306 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 506.7 705.55239521 72% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4468221585 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.5 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3571428571 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.378806143518 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140133942391 0.0743258471296 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815640337639 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.210368494294 0.128457276422 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113102039783 0.0628817314937 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.16 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.