The recommendation simply overlooks the needs of city to prevent notorious elements from damaging public property.
Author provides two contrasting evidences which are not strong enough to formulate a fructifying method to deal with notoriety in commerce chamber. It is not at all necessary that a solution that worked for others works in every situation. If the argument had been supported by sufficing evidence than high intensity lights could have been a successful solution.
To begin with, evidence suggesting that the dark is being used to damage the infrastructure would have powerfully supported the argument. People might use low light area to hide from guards around. There might have been lack of eyewitness to prove the charge against someone as it is not possible to properly recognize someone in dark. People usually avoid grey areas so the chamber may usually remain empty facilitating ambience for mischief to be carried out.
Furthermore, only a reference to Business district in city of Belleville does not give enough ground to implement the solution in-house. A detail providing similarity in situation and mischievous Belleville faced could have helped build a solid case for the solution to be implemented in Chamber of Commerce. Proving that crowd that visits Business district in the dark was similar in nature to that of the ones which come to Chamber could have been quite convincing.
In addition, an example of Amburg city failing to lessen the crime in area by deploying patrol in business district fails to consider the fact that this scandals might have been caused after the patrol officers left the sight. City of Amburg may not have enough number of officers working over night to deploy thoroughly in Business district area that is why they gave them bicycles so that one officer might cover a large area.
Conclusively, specific evidence would have helped a lot to formulate a fructifying solution against notoriety caused in dark. Description of few cases was not nearly enough to impose a solution that incur large costs from thorough intense lighting of Amburg city.
- You would like to participate in a work-related seminar in another country.Write a letter to the person in charge of the seminar and ask for detailed information regarding the dates, program, accommodation and cost. 56
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your pos 66
- Some people believe that competition for high grades motivates students to excel in the classroom. Others believe that such competition seriously limits the quality of real learning.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with 83
- Some people believe that corporations have a responsibility to promote the well-being of the societies and environments in which they operate. Others believe that the only responsibility of corporations, provided they operate within the law, is to make as 66
- Any leader who is quickly and easily influenced by shifts in popular opinion will accomplish little.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 241, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ed for others works in every situation. If the argument had been supported by suff...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['furthermore', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'in addition', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270718232044 0.25644967241 106% => OK
Verbs: 0.201657458564 0.15541462614 130% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0690607734807 0.0836205057962 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.060773480663 0.0520304965353 117% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0110497237569 0.0272364105082 41% => OK
Prepositions: 0.138121546961 0.125424944231 110% => OK
Participles: 0.0690607734807 0.0416121511921 166% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.69521189172 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0524861878453 0.026700313972 197% => Less infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00276243093923 0.001811407834 153% => OK
Determiners: 0.085635359116 0.113004496875 76% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0303867403315 0.0255425247493 119% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0138121546961 0.0127820249294 108% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2117.0 2731.13054187 78% => OK
No of words: 343.0 446.07635468 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.17201166181 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.393586005831 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.282798833819 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.227405247813 0.208842608468 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128279883382 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69521189172 2.79052419416 97% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 207.018472906 94% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.565597667638 0.469332199767 121% => OK
Word variations: 62.6748476534 52.1807786196 120% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 22.8666666667 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.0626846662 57.7814097925 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.133333333 141.986410481 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8666666667 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.466666666667 0.724660767414 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 51.1465500486 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.74747474747 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.384858585864 0.441005458295 87% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0988575769692 0.135418324435 73% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0897095796468 0.0829849096947 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.622636955838 0.58762219726 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.154320194739 0.147661913831 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.164917070506 0.193483328276 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107714187905 0.0970749176394 111% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.26969324513 0.42659136922 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.126993633066 0.0774707102158 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.246206973709 0.312017818177 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0963431327133 0.0698173142475 138% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 13.0 14.657635468 89% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.