In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patrol, many drivers are exceeding the speed limit. Prunty County should instead undertake the same kind of road improvement project that Butler County completed five years ago: increasing lane widths, resurfacing rough highways, and improving visibility at dangerous intersections. Today, major Butler County roads still have a 55 mph speed limit, yet there were 25 percent fewer reported accidents in Butler County this past year than there were five years ago.
In the above statement, the author contends that the Prunty County should improve their road as what the Butler County had implemented 5 years ago. After the road improvements done in Butler County, the author propounds a supporting evidence that the accidents have reduced 25 percent last year compared to the statistics from 5 years ago. While supporting his argument, the author makes numerous assumption that is not taken for granted. Thus, further evidence pertaining to this issue should be warranted in order to make the writer's claim more valid.
Firstly, the author assumes that limiting the speed limit from 55 to 45 automatically leads to less accidents. So the author states that since the number of accidents has not decreased, limiting the speed from 55 to 45 is no use. However, it may not be the case. The conditions could not have remained the same when the speed limit was 55. Although the speed allowed for vehicle is constrained to 45, the number of cars on the road could have surged. Or, many green drivers could have started to drive cars due to a university built recently. Therefore, further evidence pertaining to whether other conditions have remained constant should be validated in order to claim the author's statement to be validating.
Secondly, exceeding the speed limit leads to more accidents is not conclusively proven. Although the author supports this statement by giving the evidence from the highway patrol that the number of accidents has not decreased, the author is mistaking the simultaneous, exclusively act with the causal relationship. The speed limit could have been exceeded in order to evade more serious accidents to happen, and actually prevented the harsh happenings. Other reasons could have been responsible for the number of accidents, such as stated in the above paragraph. In addition, there is no numerical data on to what degree the speed limit was exceeded. It could only be a mere degree that cannot give fault to the reason for the constant number of accidents. In addition, the number of drivers using the Prunty County's highway could have increased, therefore the ratio of the number of accidents by the drivers could have actually decreased. As such, more detailed evidence should be suggested in order to validate the author's claim.
Lastly, the author assumes that what has been applied in Butler County could also be appropriately applied to Prunty County as well. However, first, the improvement done in Butler County was the experience from 5 years ago. The regulation could have changed dramatically from the past, so, the same could not be applied to Prunty County. In addition, it could be the Butler County's drivers personality that could have accounted to less accidents to happen. They might generally have more careful characteristic traits compared to the Prunty County. Lastly, even though the number of accidents has decreased, the percentage of the accidents arising could have actually increased due to few drivers using the highway. Or, since the statistics is based on the last year, it could have been a temporary one.
In sum, the author's claim is not very well supported in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to the environmental conditions in Prunty County from when the speed limit was 55 and 45, the reason for exceeding the speed limit, and the conditions for Butler County's situation from 5 years ago is crucial in determining the validity of the claim.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-18 | sapana | 33 | view |
| 2019-12-14 | yswang | 34 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | angeshpokharel | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-19 | bishal sitaula | 53 | view |
| 2019-11-17 | smithsonite79 | 63 | view |
- 101. Although innovations such as video, computer, and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students, these technologies all too often distract from real learning. 53
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaint 50
- The following appeared in a memo written by a dean at Buckingham College."To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a new dormitory. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, should double over the 69
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors."Over 80 percent of the respondents to a recent survey indicated a desire to reduce their intake of foods containing fats and cholesterol, and today low-fat products abound in many food s 41
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 43
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK. It is somehow duplicated to argument 1 .
argument 3 -- OK
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 570 350
No. of Characters: 2830 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.886 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.965 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.615 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 146 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.357 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.631 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.607 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 96, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun accidents is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...it from 55 to 45 automatically leads to less accidents. So the author states that si...
^^^^
Line 3, column 676, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ould be validated in order to claim the authors statement to be validating. Secondl...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 432, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun accidents is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ersonality that could have accounted to less accidents to happen. They might general...
^^^^
Line 7, column 683, Rule ID: TO_TOO[2]
Message: Did you mean 'too'?
Suggestion: too
...ising could have actually increased due to few drivers using the highway. Or, sinc...
^^
Line 9, column 75, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Further,
...ery well supported in its current form. Further evidence pertaining to the environmenta...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'lastly', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'in addition', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.236133122029 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.188589540412 0.15541462614 121% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0602218700475 0.0836205057962 72% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0697305863708 0.0520304965353 134% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0126782884311 0.0272364105082 47% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103011093502 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0839936608558 0.0416121511921 202% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.66987399456 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0396196513471 0.026700313972 148% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.117274167987 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0348652931854 0.0255425247493 136% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0126782884311 0.0127820249294 99% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3471.0 2731.13054187 127% => OK
No of words: 570.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08947368421 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88617158649 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.368421052632 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.271929824561 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.19298245614 0.208842608468 92% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.138596491228 0.135150697306 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66987399456 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 207.018472906 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.39298245614 0.469332199767 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 46.2132048674 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 20.3571428571 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2653164798 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.964285714 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.3571428571 23.2022227129 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.607142857143 0.724660767414 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 47.5501253133 51.9672348444 92% => OK
Elegance: 1.56140350877 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.416959996076 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.127051567413 0.135418324435 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0887952889533 0.0829849096947 107% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.574926534168 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.140246691879 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.179318626168 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0676455142523 0.0970749176394 70% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.588548263746 0.42659136922 138% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.110236919459 0.0774707102158 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.315293429961 0.312017818177 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0364672098157 0.0698173142475 52% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => 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.