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 the editorial from local newspaper, it is stated that opponents have planed to add bicycle lane to blue highway rather than widening the highway buy adding additional lane. The opponents have came to this conclusion due to issues faced by Green highway last year and keen interest in bicycles by many area residents. However before this recommendation can be properly evaluated three question must be answered.
First of all are Green highway and Blue highway comparable? In other words scenario of one highway can be used to predict the other one? It is possible that Green highway might be located in urban area while Blue highway is located in rural area. Other possible scenario is that it is possible that Green highway construction is way different from Blue highway like one might have narrow roads and other doesn’t . Even it is possible that Green highway might have pit, bad or dangerous lane due to lack of construction but Blue highway may not have all this. So by considering this situation the assumption is getting weaken to compare both highway without getting into detail.
Second scenario might be that if you enjoy bicycling as hobby, then you are likely to use that mode of transportation to work. But what if percentage of people enjoying riding bicycling is very less compared to non riders. Even though some people enjoy riding bicycles but they can’t use this mode as transportation due to long distance between their home and work area. If rainy weather occurs it will make bicycle lane empty as no one would choose to bicycle and so traffic might get even worsened. Therefore assuming that bicycles lover’s would likely use this mode of transportation to work is not working.
Third case comes that adding bicycle lane will not result in any accidents that actually cause more traffic delays than the current set up. In other words traffic will get reduce by adding bicycle lane. It is possible that bicycle might even worsened the traffic delays, as if bicycle are on other lane, the vehicles might increase their speed than they were before. As before they might have fear of crashing with bicycle but now no fear. So prediction of less traffic due to no accidents by adding bicycle lane is weaken by above statements.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed down with several unwanted assumptions. If author is able to give detail answer to above three question through proper research and offer evidence, then it may
work to add bicycle lane to reduce traffic.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 16 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 425 350
No. of Characters: 2036 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.54 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.791 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.421 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 30 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.787 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.9 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 149, Rule ID: BUY_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'by'?
Suggestion: by
...ighway rather than widening the highway buy adding additional lane. The opponents h...
^^^
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'come'.
Suggestion: come
...ing additional lane. The opponents have came to this conclusion due to issues faced ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 321, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...est in bicycles by many area residents. However before this recommendation can be prope...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 70, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'words'' or 'word's'?
Suggestion: words'; word's
...y and Blue highway comparable? In other words scenario of one highway can be used to ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...ight have narrow roads and other doesn’t . Even it is possible that Green highway ...
^^
Line 3, column 465, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'pitted'.
Suggestion: pitted
... possible that Green highway might have pit, bad or dangerous lane due to lack of c...
^^^
Line 5, column 502, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...and so traffic might get even worsened. Therefore assuming that bicycles lover’s would li...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 517, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'weakened'.
Suggestion: weakened
... no accidents by adding bicycle lane is weaken by above statements. In conclusion, ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, however, if, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, while, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2089.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 424.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92688679245 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48377433518 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471698113208 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 655.2 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.4995448855 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.4761904762 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1904761905 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0887869450915 0.218282227539 41% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0332445025014 0.0743258471296 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0312484773679 0.0701772020484 45% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0452795832487 0.128457276422 35% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0299145792129 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => 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: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.