The following appeared in an editorial in a local newspaper.
"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. Opponents note that last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. Their suggested alternative proposal is adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the Newspaper Editor concludes that adding a bicycle lane can reduce rush hour traffic jam to blue Highway. To support that recommendation, it is cited in the news paper that commuter complained about rush hour traffic jam and a proposal of widening the highway. It also cited in paper that many residents are keen bicyclists and it would encourage them to use bicycle to commute. However, this evidence provide little credible support for the recommendations.
Firstly, author claimed that commuters are blaming on increasement of rush hour traffic due to narrow motorists lobby in the highway and proposed that to widen the motorists passage. However, writer has not cleared about an reliable survey to believe on that. It might be happen that the numbers of traffic jam observers are very less and they mentioned the proposal of widening to their beneficial purpose. Even if the motorists lobby can solve the traffic jam issue, we need other scenario if any other reason is connected behind this traffic jam.
Secondly, author also cited that about additional lane for traffic and mentioned that in previous years previous lane was worsened the traffic jam. So author cited the proposal for adding bicycle lane can solve out this issue. However, writer has not mentioned more information about the example location nearby at Green highway where this steps create more traffic jam. Thus, more reliable constructive information need to apply in the city. even if this steps work out, we still need the information o why this particular bicycle lane can reduce the traffic jam issue.
Moreover, author claimed if this bicycle lane is created then people would be encouraged to use this lane. However, this might be happen that other people have interest on others vehicles like personal car, jeep car or rickshaw and very few people use bicycle. So, if this is the case then creating bicycle lane would be loss projects and it don’t worth of money. So, government should not establish before properly justified.
In conclusion, authors suggestions is totally unpersuasive that adding bicycle lane can reduce high rush our traffic jam issues. To strengthen his support editorial must convince me with some information that why particular bicycle lane can solve out this problem. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know the survey where need to mentioned about numbers of people who faced traffic jam. I would also need to know I there is an other reason which is the reason for traffic jam.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 13 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 416 350
No. of Characters: 2044 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.516 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.913 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.48 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 115 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.8 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.112 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.345 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.345 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 163, Rule ID: NEWS_PAPER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'newspaper'? This word sequence is usually spelled together.
Suggestion: newspaper
...that recommendation, it is cited in the news paper that commuter complained about rush hou...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 221, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
.... However, writer has not cleared about an reliable survey to believe on that. It ...
^^
Line 3, column 444, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Even
... information need to apply in the city. even if this steps work out, we still need t...
^^^^
Line 4, column 342, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'does'?
Suggestion: does
...ycle lane would be loss projects and it don’t worth of money. So, government should...
^^^
Line 5, column 432, Rule ID: AN_OTHER[1]
Message: Did you mean 'another'? This word sequence is usually spelled together.
Suggestion: another
...m. I would also need to know I there is an other reason which is the reason for traffic ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2094.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 415.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04578313253 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51348521516 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53115756141 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.455421686747 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 657.9 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 0.0 8.76447105788 0% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 32.0119025483 57.8364921388 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.7142857143 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7619047619 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.71428571429 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153363293326 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0570532793906 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0823592058834 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107973922447 0.128457276422 84% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0903420583875 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.81 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.