The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council.
"Two years ago, 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, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material — which includes paper, plastic, and metal — should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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.
Chairperson of west egg town council demands to increase the amount of recycled material such as paper, plastic and metal as charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. As according to his memorandum in past two year town’s residents has been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous year and according to survey made it is been concluded that 90 percent of people will do more recycling in feature. However, before this demand can properly evaluate, some question must be answer.
First of all, how efficient was the survey? Maybe, survey which is made has done in small area with minimum number of people. Maybe population in our town will burgeon in coming years as it is developing area many people will migrate here searching for job opportunities which will lead to increase in quantity in garbage. If it is true then it is blatant that survey which was carried out will be erroneous and garbage disposal land will soon get fill then estimated time leading to many problems which will exacerbate the present condition.
Secondly, on what bases conclusion is drawn that by doubling the charges of pickup truck people will recycle more? Maybe, idea of doubling the charges of pickup truck will be debacle. People will not recycle as they used to do before and if this happens to be true then it will exacerbate the situation. This may also lead to attenuate the conclusion that landfill will be available for longer. Maybe due to this action landfill will be filling before predicted time and if this happen then it is blatant that memorandum does not hold any water.
Finally, how long people will remember their commitment? Or what make you think that all people will follow their commitment? Commitment is made for next three years and it is blatant that all people will not remember their commitment or if they remember they will benight the commitment which will lead to debacle. As population will also increase it is plausible that new residents will not know about this commitment and they will continue to recycle waste according to their convenience. If this happens to be true then landfill will be filled very soon and it will attenuate the predicted time.
In conclusion, the evidence provided by the chairperson, that supports his claim, is dubious as well as erroneous. If all the questions are answer and more evidences are provided it will strengthen the argument.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 19 15
No. of Words: 411 350
No. of Characters: 1972 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.503 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.798 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.448 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 136 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.632 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.158 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.106 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 601, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...d it will attenuate the predicted time. In conclusion, the evidence provided by ...
^^^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ided it will strengthen the argument.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, in conclusion, such as, as well as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 411.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.92457420925 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50256981431 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.53091423085 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 190.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.462287104623 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 610.2 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.1195634577 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.526315789 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6315789474 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.05263157895 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.149978484266 0.218282227539 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512207848952 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0499223559727 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0917203124485 0.128457276422 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0643816830452 0.0628817314937 102% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.26 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.