The following is a recommendation from the city manager of Bridge Bay.
“Last year, the number of visits to our local beach in Bridge Bay was 50 percent lower
than the year before. Early last year we ended our contract with Arko Trash Collection, a
company that had serviced local garbage collection for the past twenty years. We switched
at that time to Satellite Waste Corporation, another trash collection company. In nearby
Ocean Harbor, where Arko has continued to provide garbage collection, the beaches are
experiencing record levels of attendance. Meanwhile, in Bridge Bay, complaints about
garbage on our beach have increased this year. Clearly, inadequate garbage collection on
our beach by Satellite has led to the significant drop in visitors. Therefore, in order to
restore visitor numbers to our local beach, we recommend resuming our contract with
Arko as soon as possible.”
The manager claims here that the local beach he is in charge of should quickly resume its contract with Arko Trash Collection, the former company which duty consisted in servicing local garbage collection. Last year, Bridge Bay has ended its collaboration with Arko Trash Collection and has signed a new contract with a rival company.
First of all, the arguments readily assumes that what fundamentally distinguishes the services at Bridge Bay and rival local beach Ocean Harbor, is the process of garbage collection. Given that attendance in Ocean Harbor far exceeds attendance at Bridge Bay, the manager imputes this gap to the end of the collaboration between Arko and Bridge Bay. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, Bridge Bay may be loccated in a more pleasant and quiescent setting. Thus, more tourists would be attracted to Bridge Bay. Other key factors could have bring about this gap : a difference in the quality of services for example. Hence, the recommendation would have been much convincing it it was supported by a thorough assessment of Ocean Harbor offer and a proper benchmark.
The argument readily asserts that the complaints about garbage collection in Bridge Bay shoud be imputed to the new conctrat the local beach has signed with a different garbage collector. However, it may be a matter of customers behaviours : customers could have been more prone to leave their garbage carelessly thus leading to less effective garbage collection. The argument should provide evidence that customers attending the local beach have not adopted a different behviour in ordre to be more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the manager notes that complaints about garbage have increased recently. The underlying assumption is that people complaining about garbage are representative of the whole set of customers, which indicates that people are not attending Bridge Bay because of the garbage there. Nonetheless, careful scrutiny of the evidence could reveal that people's complaints about garbage are correlated to personality or general experience at the beach.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further and support the recommendation he made, the author must provide better concrete evidence, perhaps by a way of a reliable survey and a detailed analysis of the difference of offer in bea
- Some people believe that success in creative fields, such as painting, fiction writing, andfilmmaking, primarily requires hard work and perseverance. Others believe that suchsuccess mainly requires innate talents that cannot be learned. 83
- Some people believe that it is helpful to view a challenging situation as an opportunity forpersonal growth. Others believe that reimagining challenging situations this way occupiestoo much of the focus one needs to face challenges effectively.Write a res 62
- The following is a recommendation from the city manager of Bridge Bay.“Last year, the number of visits to our local beach in Bridge Bay was 50 percent lowerthan the year before. Early last year we ended our contract with Arko Trash Collection, acompany 69
- In surveys Mason City residents rank water sports (swimming, boating and fishing) among their favorite recreational activities. The Mason River flowing through the city is rarely used for these pursuits, however, and the city park department devotes littl 63
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 17 15
No. of Words: 380 350
No. of Characters: 1971 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.415 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.187 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.807 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.353 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.526 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.335 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.588 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 576, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'brought'.
Suggestion: brought
...ridge Bay. Other key factors could have bring about this gap : a difference in the qu...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 710, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: it
...ndation would have been much convincing it it was supported by a thorough assessment ...
^^^^^
Line 17, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...e at the beach. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, may, nonetheless, so, thus, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2026.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 380.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33157894737 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86970223565 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497368421053 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.8488737837 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.176470588 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3529411765 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.11764705882 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.241223340621 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0802395755031 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0886938150194 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132927220408 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.114208667125 0.0628817314937 182% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.