The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville:
"Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down significantly."
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.
The following argument is flawed for the following reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the cause of sidewalk rage is the use of cell phone on sidewalks, rendering it's main conclusion that by banning the use of cell phones on the sidewalk reduces sidewalk rage.
The argument fails to provide justification for how the use of a cell phones on the side walk can cause assaults and property damage. For one, the cause of such rage can stem from a number of other psychological reasons. Considering that there is no scientific evidence to bolster the notion that the use of cell phones cause sidewalk rage renders the assumption without bias.
The argument also leaves many unwarranted questions. The argument considers bumping into someone and assault to be commensurate with one another. Furthermore, it assumes that the primary cause slow pedestrian traffic is the use of cellphones. The slow traffic could be due to a number of reasons. Senior citizens also slow down pedestrian traffic, people with kids also tend to walk slowly so it is absurd to assume that the cell phones are the primary factor for disruptions in pedestrian traffic.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that because a ban in cell phones reduced the incidents of sidewalk crime in Centerville the same will hold true in Middletown. For one, the people of Middletown may have a greater population of senior citizens and teenagers who disrupt the pedestrian traffic irrespective of whether they use a cell phone. It is imprudent to assume that. Had the argument
provided data comparing the demographic of the two cities, even then the argument must first prove that the use of cell phone is the cause of sidewalk rage.
Because the argument makes several unwarranted questions, it fails to make a convincing case that by banning cell phones in Middletown, it can expect to mirror the sidewalk crime in Centerville.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-24 | Ruhani | 63 | view |
| 2023-08-12 | hello_kratnesh101 | 30 | view |
| 2023-07-25 | manavkamdar27 | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-19 | jayauen | 50 | view |
| 2023-06-15 | vignesh1317 | 60 | view |
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting 66
- The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville Over the past three years there has been a marked increase in cases of sidewalk rage similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road but instead among sidewalk walkers The resul 70
- Universities should require students to take courses only within those fields they are interested in studying Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting 16
- Technology while apparently aimed to simplify our lives only makes our lives more complicated Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In develo 50
- The following appeared as part of the Dean s newsletter The University of Wabash is considering a community service requirement for all undergraduate and graduate students We believe that the objective of any university is to produce well rounded and char 68
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 321 350
No. of Characters: 1586 1500
No. of Different Words: 145 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.233 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.941 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.708 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 93 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.582 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, then, in conclusion
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: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1628.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 321.0 441.139720559 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.07165109034 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.23278547379 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78229948063 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467289719626 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.9361581287 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.533333333 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46666666667 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
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: 0.0913520027308 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0352845065169 0.0743258471296 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0434320199676 0.0701772020484 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0654703376115 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.048598432827 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => 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: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => 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.