The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:
“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument reaches the conclusion that Masontown must implement an advertising campaign encouraging its citizens to recycle their waste. This conclusion is based on the premise of the decreased garbage disposal costs of Hayesworth, the neighbouring town, after the implementation of a law that required residents to recycle paper and glass. However, in reaching this conclusion, the argument's author fails to definitively answer three important questions, the answers to which could dramatically affect the veracity of the argument's logic.
First, is the population of Hayesworth similar to that of Masontown, in terms of waste types (and other aspects associated with the commercial viability of recycling)? It is possible that Masontown is significantly smaller than Hayesworth, and that recycling plants are far enough from the region that the costs of transporting recyclable waste are unreasonable. There is a possibility that Masontown residents reuse paper and glass products rather than recycling them, and that such a measure would just increase the expenses of waste management. Another likelihood is that the people of Masontown do not generate high amounts of recyclable waste, like paper and glass; they may use materials like plastic that are harder to recycle. In any of these cases, the two towns would not be similar enough to imply that a measure taken in one would work in the other.
Second, even if it is assumed that the answer to the previous question to be 'yes,' would an advertising campaign suffice in encouraging Masontown citizens to recycle their waste? It may be possible that most of its people work in places outside the town, and hence may not encounter the advertisements much. It could also be the case that the people of this area are, in general, less receptive to advertisements. The author has failed to provide evidence that an advertising campaign would work in this area, and thus leaves room for the possibility of such efforts going in vain. If the argument can prove that advertising has worked in the area for similar public messages, only then can it be more persuasive in its claims.
Finally, would recycling efforts in Masontown sufficiently offset the other costs that would be borne by the municipal council for advertising, and other waste? Even if the answer to the previous questions is 'yes,' it is possible that recycling has an extremely high initial cost that would be hard to compensate for via reduction in other kinds of waste. If people continue to use materials like plastic, these recycling measures may not cut the costs of garbage disposal fees to a sufficient extent. Investing in infrastructure related to recycling would have to be allocated a large sum of money, which may not yield returns for a very long time. The local government may not have even considered other ways to reduce garbage disposal costs like, perhaps, requesting its citizens to purchase reusable and more durable products. In fact, if other measures are taken alongisde recycling, such as reusing products (responsibly), and refusing to use plastics, then the author's argument would be much stronger. However, there is no indication of such efforts taken in brainstorming comprehensive solutions.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, considerably fails in its attempts to justify an advertising campaign to encourage recycling in Masontown. The author must formulate a more cogent argument, with substantiative evidence and reliable, comprehensive sources. While they do try to attempt drawing parallels between the neighbouring towns, their argument is not convincing enough to warrant going ahead with its recommendation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-13 | Technoblade | 68 | view |
| 2022-09-12 | Sumilak | 78 | view |
| 2022-08-21 | parker | 68 | view |
| 2022-07-18 | gewkimrtnabovwtejo | 60 | view |
| 2021-12-22 | Rafid_Murshed | 73 | view |
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports swimming boating and fishing among their favorite recreational activities The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits however and the city park department devotes little of i 80
- Hospital statistics regarding people who go to the emergency room after roller skating accidents indicate the need for more protective equipment Within that group of people 75 percent of those who had accidents in streets or parking lots had not been wear 66
- One increasingly popular policy for promoting renewable energy is a feed in tariff Under such a policy investors on any scale from large corporations to individual homeowners produce their own energy from solar panels installed on their property Electrici 59
- A true university education encompasses far more than the narrow specialized study of a single discipline Only through exploring the broad spectrum of liberal arts courses can students become truly learned 66
- The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal 78
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 585 350
No. of Characters: 3026 1500
No. of Different Words: 250 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.918 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.173 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.905 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 212 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 182 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 137 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.072 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.079 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 526, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...dramatically affect the veracity of the arguments logic. First, is the population of H...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 16, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'recycle'
Suggestion: recycle
...uasive in its claims. Finally, would recycling efforts in Masontown sufficiently offse...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 966, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... and refusing to use plastics, then the authors argument would be much stronger. Howeve...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, second, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion, in fact, in general, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3101.0 2260.96107784 137% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30085470085 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9720425207 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 204.123752495 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.45641025641 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 963.9 705.55239521 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 29.7582572614 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 134.826086957 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.4347826087 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.26086956522 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.126014965293 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0433714932106 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.039677230727 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0769718906813 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0297179454584 0.0628817314937 47% => 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: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 98.500998004 146% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.