The following appeared in a letter to the editor of 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. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In this argument, the author concludes that providing a bicycle lane would reduce rush hour traffic issues rather than adding a lane to the nearby green highway. This might be true, however, before the conclusion can be adequately validated, the author should address these three unwarranted assumptions.
First of all, the author assumes that the only factor that doubled their commuting time is the increased rush hour traffic. This might not be true. Perharps most of the cummuters complaining are slow drivers or tyro in driving. Irrespective of the condition of traffic, slow or novice drivers will always spend more time commuting compare to expert drivers. In addition, May be commuters complaining branch many places when commuting. You cannot expect to spend the same time with someone who goes to one destination, when you branch many places before reaching your destination. If either scenerios above proves true, then the author's suggestion does not hold water.
Moreover, the author assumes that because that addition of a lane to nearby Green Highway failed last year, it will be a continuous trend in the subsequent years. This might not be true. Election comes once in four years in some countries, Maybe it was during election or when a big program was ongoing in Green Highway they provided the lane, obviously, it will still be jampacked, however, immediately Election or the program is done, the purpose of the lane would be fulfilled. If this proves true, then, the authors suggested is invalidated.
Finally, the author assumes the residents will ignore the advantages motocycles have over bicycles. This might not be true. Bicycles can only accomodate one person, what if they are going for a family conference, where they need to be together at the same time. What if some commuters cannot do without enjoying the air conditioning, musics and the coolness with motor cycles provide when travelling. The authors conclusion cannot be validated unless there scenerios are look into.
In conclusion, provision of a bicycle lane near Green Highways to reduce traffic jams, hence, reduce commuting hours cannot holds water if those assumptions above are not properly cleared.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 11 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 354 350
No. of Characters: 1792 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.338 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.062 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.517 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.619 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.31 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.31 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.06 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 628, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...r scenerios above proves true, then the authors suggestion does not hold water. Moreov...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tor cycles provide when travelling. The authors conclusion cannot be validated unless t...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, still, then, in addition, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1844.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 354.0 441.139720559 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20903954802 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33761313653 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62737378021 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.553672316384 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 565.2 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 63.7617622629 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.0526315789 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6315789474 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131700774839 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0458669567144 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0720281596015 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0818716925299 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0606960116401 0.0628817314937 97% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.