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

The author claims that there has been a complaint by commuters about the rise in rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway has doubled the time. A proposal was made to widen the highway by adding an additional lane. However, last year’s addition of lane on Green Highway was an abysmal. As many residents were keen bicyclists, an alternative of adding a bicycle lane was also proposed to encourage the commuters. The author never addresses about the size and state of the highway and omits important evidence about the types of vehicles they use.
Firstly, the author assumes that adding a line for bicycle will be more useful. But he does not address that if the passengers are willing to commute by bicycles or not. Adding any kind of lane would make it difficult for the commuters as we have no confirmation of them travelling in bicycles. It would encourage them to use bicycle at some point but if they get late and are rushing, it is not a good idea to use a bicycle. Instead, they would choose a faster vehicle.
Secondly, author never addresses about the state and size of the Blue Highway. The traffic of the highway mostly depends on its condition. If the highway has bumps or any kind of obstacles it makes the vehicles move slower. Those bumps can also damage a vehicle and create traffic on the highway. It is nearly dangerous to have such obstacles for a fastmoving vehicle, so they might lower their speed at times. It also depends on the size and type of vehicle they use. Since, there is no information from the author about the types of vehicles, they might be larger than a car for few commuters.
Finally, author omits evidence about the types of vehicles as these effects the size of the highway. This problem cannot be solved until there is no clear data about the types of automobiles they use. Because a commuter can use any kind of medium smaller or bigger. If they use bigger and there are obstacles it makes those vehicles even more difficult to move quickly. An idea about the types and size of vehicles makes this assumption even more credible. Even adding an extra lane would be depended on the data of vehicles.
In conclusion, as this assumptions fail to convince the case of adding a lane for bicycle instead of motorists’ lobby will improve the traffic on the blue highway.

Votes
Average: 5.5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 182, Rule ID: ADD_AN_ADDITIONAL[1]
Message: This phrase might be redundant. Use simply 'adding a lane'.
Suggestion: adding a lane
...oposal was made to widen the highway by adding an additional lane. However, last year’s addition of lane ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 268, Rule ID: DT_JJ_NO_NOUN[1]
Message: Probably a noun is missing in this part of the sentence.
...s addition of lane on Green Highway was an abysmal. As many residents were keen bicyclists...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...be larger than a car for few commuters. Finally, author omits evidence about the...
^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, in conclusion, kind of

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1902.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 408.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.66176470588 5.12650576532 91% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49433085973 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4596317901 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 180.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.441176470588 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 624.6 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.1919783313 57.8364921388 52% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 79.25 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 23.324526521 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.875 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267486774848 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0889432422497 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0966667179485 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.174087972718 0.128457276422 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114662580866 0.0628817314937 182% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.0 14.3799401198 63% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 62.68 48.3550499002 130% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.7 12.197005988 71% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.45 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.5 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 408 350
No. of Characters: 1852 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.494 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.539 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.345 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 94 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.439 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.317 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5