The following is a memorandum from the office of Mayor Harrison Smith Jones In order to relieve Briggsville s notorious traffic congestion Mayor Harrison Smith Jones plans to build a multi million dollar subway system The subway will run through the major

In the memorandum, Briggsville's Mayor plans to build multi million dollar subway system to solve traffic problems and increase worker productivity. He thinks subway will solve problems of residents related to inconsistent buses and general safety while riding the buses, which will in turn increase worker productivity. However, the argument for the plan takes into account certain assumptions which are not laid out in the memorandum and if the assumptions prove unwarranted the argument fails.

First of all, the subway may increase the traffic congestion. The memorandum does not specify what is causing the traffic congestion whether it is the public transport or private vehicles. If the majority of traffic is of private transport then it will not reduce the traffic and building of subway will take up major portion of the road, thus increasing the traffic congestion. Furthermore, it does not specify whether residents using the buses are willing to switch to subway or if the subway travels to the same destinations as the bus. If the people continue to use the bus the traffic on the road will not decrease and building of subway will increase traffic congestion.

Second, the memorandum states that building subway will solve problem of inconsistent buses by stating that it will run 24 hours a day. 24 hours a day does not mean subway will be consistent with the timings. It may still run late from time to time and memorandum does not assure us of consistency.

Third, the memorandum assumes that improving traffic will increase worker productivity but does not provide any details as what is affecting worker productivity. There can be several other factors affecting productivity such as low wage, bad morale or lack of social services. We will need to take survey and ask workers that what steps need to be taken to increase worker productivity. The assumption that building a subway will increase worker productivity has no ground.

In conclusion the argument is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the mayor is able to analyze above three points and offer more evidence, then it will be fully possible to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed plan to build a subway.

Votes
Average: 7 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 77, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e the traffic congestion. The memorandum does not specify what is causing the tra...
^^
Line 3, column 143, Rule ID: IT_IS[17]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
... causing the traffic congestion whether its the public transport or private vehicle...
^^^
Line 3, column 379, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...thus increasing the traffic congestion. Furthermore it does not specify whether residents u...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 182, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...ve three points and offer more evidence then it will be fully possible to fully eval...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, second, so, still, then, third, thus, while, in conclusion, such as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1877.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 366.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12841530055 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.37391431897 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80143128765 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 204.123752495 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478142076503 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 577.8 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.0687776782 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.411764706 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5294117647 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.29411764706 5.70786347227 128% => 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 : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.269320197288 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101426531843 0.0743258471296 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0833549218726 0.0701772020484 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15040027615 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560206373603 0.0628817314937 89% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.7 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 367 350
No. of Characters: 1838 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.377 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.008 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.737 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 67 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.588 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.481 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.706 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.621 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5