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 local newspaper letter, the author states that the addition of a bicycle lane would encourage more residents to use bikes rather than to drive cars for their commute. The author supports this claim by pointing out that the residents of the area have a keen interest in riding bicycles. While this conclusion may seem like a strong stance, it is not adequately supported as it would require some more evidence to bolster the argument.
First, we would need evidence of the commute routes and distances that the residents would be taking. If we had valid evidence that the commute distances taken by a reasonable percentage of the residents were optimal for riding a bicycle, then the addition of a bicycle lane would help to alleviate the problem of traffic flow during rush hour. However, if the distances of the commute destinations were to be more than an ideal bicycle trip, less people would resort to riding bicycles and would opt for an automobile commute. In this case, the addition of a bicycle lane might not be an optimal solution and thus, the conclusion of the author would not hold.
Second, to support the claim that the keen interest of the residents towards bicycling would actually lead to a better traffic flow, we would again require some more evidence. If it were proven that the residents who have an interest in bicycle riding also have the same interest in using it as a form of transportation to reach their destinations, then the addition of a bicycle lane may potentially lead to reduced traffic during rush-hour. On the other hand, if the keen bicycle riders are generally interested in the activity as a form of entertainment or exercise, then when it comes to commute, they may opt for the more physically convenient option of driving to their destinations. If the residents indeed are solely interested in bicycles for the sake of entertainment or exercise, then the authors claim of a bicycle lane addition being a solution for the traffic problems would again not be supported.
Lastly, to use the Green Highway example as a formidable example to negate the benefit on an additional car lane, we would need additional evidence to prove that the Green Highway is similar to the Blue Highway, in terms of traffic. If it is proven that the flow of the traffic and the resident population of the area of the Green Highway prior to the added lane was similar to the current state of the Blue Highway, then it could be a valid argument to use in order to claim that the Blue Highway would experience the same impact with an added car lane. However, if the similarities between the Green Highway and the Blue Highway are not quite enough to conclude that the Blue Highway would experience a similar result, then it might not be a viable example. Given that we don’t have proper evidence to compare the two highways, it is not a valid argument to support the claim.
In conclusion, based upon the letter, the author believes that the addition of a bicycle lane would be the optimal solution to resolve the rush-hour phenomenon. However, based on the given evidence, we can’t simply assume that the commute distance is optimal for bicycle riding, that residents would enjoy bicycle riding as their form of commute, and that the Green Highway example is a formidable comparison to the Blue Highway. As a result, we are unable to formally conclude that the addition of a bicycle lane would be the optimal solution to the traffic enigma unless we are able to support these assumptions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-26 | Nithin Narla | 73 | view |
| 2019-11-16 | PRABINADHIKARI45 | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-01 | RICHMUM | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-29 | Morienta | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-14 | Zhang Ergou | 74 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 610 350
No. of Characters: 2853 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.97 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.677 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.524 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 33.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.872 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.424 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.634 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.238 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 34, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...nt. First, we would need evidence of the commute routes and distances that the residents...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 133, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...e taking. If we had valid evidence that the commute distances taken by a reasonable percent...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 375, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rush hour. However, if the distances of the commute destinations were to be more than an id...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 444, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
... to be more than an ideal bicycle trip, less people would resort to riding bicycles ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 233, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...dence, we can't simply assume that the commute distance is optimal for bicycle riding,...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2928.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 609.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.8078817734 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96768813016 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61581457002 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.35632183908 0.468620217663 76% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 950.4 705.55239521 135% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 33.0 22.8473053892 144% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.9757483114 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.666666667 119.503703932 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.8333333333 23.324526521 145% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.94444444444 5.70786347227 122% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117610538183 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049260986346 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0403643496608 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0766975213658 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0313842792205 0.0628817314937 50% => 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: 18.1 14.3799401198 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.98 48.3550499002 79% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 16.2 12.197005988 133% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.21 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 15.2 11.1389221557 136% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.