The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg. “Two years ago, our consultants predicted that West Egg’s landfill, which is used for garbage disposal, would be completely filled within five years. During the past two years, however, town residents have been recycling twice as much aluminum and paper as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of material recycled should further increase, since charges for garbage pickup will double. Furthermore, over ninety percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our residents’ strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted.”
The memo to the mayor of the town of west Egg claims that the landfill space of West Egg will last more than it was predicted to be as the residents are highly committed towards recycling of wastage. The author assumes that the increment in the charges for garbage pick up and the rise in the number of materials recycled would definitely make the landfill last long. The assumptions made in order to support the argument in the memo, however, is not convincing to me at all.
Firstly, can recycling of only aluminum and paper helps to reduce the garbage disposal in the landfill? A huge amount of garbage in landfill constitutes of plastics, plastic made materials and rubber. So, it does not necessarily mean that the amount of garbage will decrease. The waste materials would rather increase if these types of wastages are not managed properly. Furthermore, the memo does not provide any evidence that such waste materials are also being recycled or regulated. Thus, the recycling of paper and aluminum will not make huge impact on controlling of filling up in the landfill.
Secondly, the memo argues that when the charges will be doubled, it bolsters the people’s intention to recycle more. Nevertheless, increment in the charges may not encourage people to recycle because the wastages that are produced daily may not be possible to recycle. In such cases, people will be ready to pay charges even if the charges are doubled or even tripled and would rather want the garbage disposed. Consequently, it is not sure that every garbage produced will recycled, and there is no point in collecting extra charges.
In addition, the responses collected from the survey, perhaps, may not be actually genuine. It is possible that people might have given bogus feedback in an attempt to show that they are apathetic about recycling of wastage to promote environmental conservation. Moreover, it is not substantiated that the survey conducted includes only the residents of West Egg or the people from neighboring places are also included. Even if the survey comprised of the residents of West Egg only and the people are committed to recycling, it has neglected the fact that the population of that place will increase in future (due to migration or increase in number of birth). This will obviously increase the waste materials in future.
In a nutshell, the argument is considerably flawed to me due to unwarranted assumptions. Therefore, had the memo analyzed the above discussed issues, it would have been more convincing.
- Government in many countries have recently introduced special taxes in foods and beverages with high level sugar Some people think these taxes are good while others disagree Discuss both the views and give your opinion 56
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a Batavia newspaper The department of agriculture in Batavia reports that the number of dairy farms throughout the country is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago During this same time period 70
- The following appeared in a memo from the mayor of the town of West Egg Two years ago our consultants predicted that West Egg s landfill which is used for garbage disposal would be completely filled within five years During the past two years however town 68
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 421 350
No. of Characters: 2055 1500
No. of Different Words: 190 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.53 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.881 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.644 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.273 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.541 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 369, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...definitely make the landfill last long. The assumptions made in order to support th...
^^^
Line 3, column 142, Rule ID: CONSTITUTES_OF[1]
Message: Did you mean 'consists of'?
Suggestion: consists of
...l? A huge amount of garbage in landfill constitutes of plastics, plastic made materials and ru...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 475, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'recycle'
Suggestion: recycle
...t sure that every garbage produced will recycled, and there is no point in collecting ex...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 709, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... obviously increase the waste materials in future. In a nutshell, the argument is cons...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2114.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02137767221 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75736268125 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 198.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470308788599 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1247898546 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.7 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.05 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.168486499093 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049235134915 0.0743258471296 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056100019299 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950579979253 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0666170137636 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.