The following appeared in a newsletter to Canbury’s residents from the president of
Plexma Motors.
“I am pleased to announce that Plexma’s new manufacturing site is on schedule to open
next year. In addition to our regular line of cars, Plexma has also begun designing and
testing a line of automated self-driving vehicles. In a recent survey conducted by the
Canbury Gazette, 60 percent of residents reported that they would purchase a Plexma selfdriving
vehicle in the future if they were confident in the vehicles’ safety. We are happy to
report that last summer, we tested our new line of self-driving vehicles in downtown
Canbury with great success. Not only did our five tested vehicles remain accident-free for
two months during testing, but in a survey conducted after testing, 90 percent of
Canbury’s residents reported that when they were downtown and our vehicles were in
operation they felt very safe. Because steady demand for our self-driving vehicles will
create new jobs and thereby greatly benefit Canbury’s economy as a whole, I recommend
that you vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling these vehicles in
Canbury when our new site opens.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order
to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are
reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate
the recommendation.
The author of the above passage recommends that Cadbury's residents should vote to allow Plexma to begin manufacturing and selling self-driving cars in Canbury. However, the argument is unpersuasive to allow stated argument, because it is based on several questionable assumptions. The following essay will discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on the passage are reasonable.
First of all the author assumes that the cited recent survey is reliable, however, this may not be the case. The survey shows only partial information about the survey participants. The survey said 60percent of residents will likely to buy a car in the near future. However, without the whole number of the participants, ration only is not a reliable statistic. If the population of the survey is not large enough, 60% of the positive answer is not enough to support the author's argument. Moreover, if the residents participate in the survey are not the people from Canbury, this results could not represent the opinion of Canbury residents. Also, the expression 'in the future' is a vague expression that needs more accurate definition. 'in the future' could be tomorrow or 3years later, especially in case of purchasing expensive products such as a self-driving car. For this reason, the writer should not readily conclude that the survey report is reliable without further questions asking the descriptive information regarding participants, and more detailed date of the 'future'.
Second, the author argues that their vehicles are safe, based on a last summer experiment reports. However, the information suggested in the above passage may also be flawed. In the passage, the experiment done last summer had a great success. Even the definition of great success itself is vague, but also the detailed information are groundless too. Tested vehicles are only 5, and surely, this is not enough number to evaluate the safety of a normal vehicle. Considering that this car is new type of car, more than 30 cars need to be tested. Also, 2 months of driving is not enough to draw a general trend of the vehicle's driving safety. To figure out whether this car is really safe or not further driving test would be needed. And, like I mentioned above paragraph, the whole population of the Canbury residents and the population of the participants need to be asked too, to find out this report really represent the major population of Canbury town. Therefore, in order to judge if the experiment was really successful, further proof questioning such as cited information is necessary.
In conclusion, further questions asking more detailed evidence required for an adequate assessment or a more persuasive argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2255 1500
No. of Different Words: 201 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.045 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.789 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.435 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.071 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.291 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.448 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 472, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ive answer is not enough to support the authors argument. Moreover, if the residents pa...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 737, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
...on that needs more accurate definition. in the future could be tomorrow or 3years ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, really, regarding, second, so, therefore, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2320.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19015659955 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86939766118 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478747203579 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7662894947 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.869565217 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4347826087 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.39130434783 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.0552250717066 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.016449362705 0.0743258471296 22% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0239016783355 0.0701772020484 34% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0322107345237 0.128457276422 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0209914527242 0.0628817314937 33% => 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: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.