The argument provided aims at the better of the current situation of rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway. However, the recommendations given in the argument seem to be vague as there is little or no evidence behind floating those recommendations. Had there been evidences provided, the argument would have been much better and the recommendations could have been considered for implementation. So, the argument is a flawed one due to the following reasons:
Firstly, the argument says that the motorists’ lobby proposes to widen the highway by adding an extra lane of traffic. Now, this doesn’t necessarily ease out the current rush-hour condition on Blue Highway. What if the additional lane augmented is used by the Government for some construction like a metro construction or a connector construction? This would lead to even more congestion on the Blue Highway. Another question arises is what if the additional lane is made as a walk-away off the highway for pedestrians. Now these were some of the crucial questions that should have been thought by the motorists’ lobby before proposing such ideas.
Secondly, the argument states “last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it”. This cannot be considered to be true for Blue Highway just because it happened on some other Highway called Green Highway. There is no evidence about the Green Highway, how many lanes it has, are all vehicles permitted on the highway, how is the road condition of the Green Highway? All these questions need to be answered before concluding that Green Highway is similar to Blue Highway. Just like apples aren’t oranges, Blue Highway cannot be equated to Green Highway.
Thirdly, the suggestion of adding a bicycle lane on the Blue Highway is proposed and it is said that “Many area residents are keen bicyclists”. But one question needs to be answered here, do these “keen” bicyclists even use the Blue Highway? If the answer is NO then what will be the use of making a bicycle lane for those “keen” bicyclists? If there are almost no or very less percentage of bicycles on the Blue Highway, then making the bicycle lane will not improve the rush-hour situation by much.
Fourthly, the argument states “A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, it is argued, thereby reducing rush-hour traffic.” A very important question arises that how many of the people know to ride a bicycle? Also if they know how to, what is the daily distance that they travel from their residence to place of work that they can use a bicycle instead of a four-wheeler? If the distance is too much, one cannot travel on bicycle.
To sum up, the argument is based on many assumptions. Almost every proposal to reduce the rush-hour traffic is based on assumptions. There are no evidences and crucial questions need to be answered before implementing those proposals. Hence, this argument can be classified as a vague and poorly written.
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field 66
- 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 patro 69
- Teachers salaries should be based on their students academic performance Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be sure to address the most compelling r 50
- 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 w 68
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2411 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.784 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.684 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.703 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 536, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...highway for pedestrians. Now these were some of the crucial questions that should have been...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... Secondly, the argument states “last years addition of a lane to the nearby Green ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 363, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
... “keen” bicyclists? If there are almost no or very less percentage of bicycles on ...
^^
Line 9, column 232, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...y of the people know to ride a bicycle? Also if they know how to, what is the daily ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 35.0 19.6327345309 178% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2521.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 502.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0219123506 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84554553832 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440239043825 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 777.6 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5268668021 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.84 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.08 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169268115609 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590767429691 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0529476766384 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0911283149476 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397876900624 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.