In the argument, the author tells that because of the town West Egg's residents has made strong commitment for recycling, the available space in town's garbage land should last longer than it was predicted. The author's argument is flawed for numerous reasons. In the argument, the author has made a strong conclusion based on very weak evidence.
To begin, in the argument, the author claims that the amount of recycled material has gone twice than before. But the author fails to provide sufficient information about the type of the material that is being recycled. For example, if the plastic materials are being recycled more than twice whereas other types of material recycling has diminished then the total garbage recycle could have been the same amount as it was.
Furthermore, in this argument, the author claims that over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey would do more recycling in the future. Here, first of all, the word future is a vague term. It could means one year or 10 years. So it does not make any sense at all.
Moreover, over ninety percent people made positive response does not confirm that they will be practically active at more recycling. The author could not make conclusion based on such a virtual response.
The argument could have been more strengthened if the type of the materials was provided that is being recycling more than twice. And also the author could give sufficent information or example that will confirm that the respondents of the survey will be active in more garbage recycling.
In conclusion, the argument as several weak points that can not be overlooked so easily and the conclusion is not strong enough to convince the readers. However, as it stands, the argument is flawed for indicated reasons.
- 43 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 39
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support. 73
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 298 350
No. of Characters: 1433 1500
No. of Different Words: 144 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.155 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.809 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.441 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 104 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 71 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.395 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.369 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.647 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 210, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... last longer than it was predicted. The authors argument is flawed for numerous reasons...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 210, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'mean'
Suggestion: mean
...e word future is a vague term. It could means one year or 10 years. So it does not ma...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, moreover, so, then, whereas, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1480.0 2260.96107784 65% => OK
No of words: 298.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96644295302 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.15483772266 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53894489115 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 148.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.496644295302 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 456.3 705.55239521 65% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.1494061585 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.625 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0860331135197 0.218282227539 39% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0299997026126 0.0743258471296 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0363927000969 0.0701772020484 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0457115563169 0.128457276422 36% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0287718659644 0.0628817314937 46% => 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: 11.3 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.66 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.