The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:
“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed a law requiring that all households recycle paper and glass, or pay a fine. Since that time, Hayesworth has seen its garbage disposal costs significantly decrease. If we implemented an advertising campaign encouraging our residents to recycle, Masontown would also save money on disposal of its waste.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The local newspaper of Masontown printed a letter stating that the residents should recycle more. This will help the town to reduce expenditure on waste disposal. The argument is supported by citing an example of neighboring town that implemented such steps and had seen a decrease in their garbage disposal costs. The town of Hayesworth also passed a law that would fine residents for not recycling their waste. Although propitious on the outside, the proposal is rife of loopholes.
Firstly the garbage disposal fees have been mentioned which will be saved if the proposed plan is followed. But how can the letter claim definite reduction in garbage disposal costs? Without buttressing their claim with statistical data, no conclusive assertions can be made regarding the matter. It might be the case that residents of Masontown do not see worth in the new recycling scheme and hence do not adopt the same. It might also be the case that the task of recycling could be more arduous than waste disposal. And hence the residents would not be willing to do such a task and would be willing to pay the disposal fees.
Secondly Hayesworth has been adduced as the town who achieved success in implementing the recycling scheme. But it has also been mentioned that the said town only passed the law late last year. So it has not been significant time since the law's implementation. How can the newspaper infer from such short time? How can they claim that the same law, if passed in Masontown, will also produce same result? The newspaper has failed to provide empirical evidence that bolsters their claim. They ought to mention the statistics of both the cities regarding waste disposal fees. It might be the case that Hayesworth was town with small population in comparison to Masontown and hence they were successful. But implementing such a law might not procure similar fruitful results in Masontown too.
Thirdly advertising campaign have been proposed to encourage the residents to recycle. Without any statistical data pertaining to the municipal waste disposal fees, it would not be favorable to launch such a campaign. It might be the case that the expenditure of the campaign itself outweighs the waste disposal fees. Also there is no certainty that the residents would acknowledge the campaign and indulge themselves in recycling the waste. Also no guarantees can be made about the success of recycling the waste. It might be the case that residents may now just dump their waste and not pay the disposal fees too. This might lead to dunes of waste in the town which is certainly not salubrious.
Hence nothing conclusively can be said about the acceptance of the new recycling plan. The newspaper ought to provide more empirical and statistical data pertaining to the matter. Only then would they be able to draw the attention of the residents of Masontown. So unless and until the above mentioned loopholes are not addressed properly, the plan will inexorably fail.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-19 | Pratik Kasle | 63 | view |
| 2022-09-12 | Sumilak | 78 | view |
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in Masontown:“If we want to save money on municipal garbage disposal fees, we need to encourage our residents to recycle more. Late last year, our neighboring town, Hayesworth, passed 50
- Learninig is primarily a matter of personal discipline;students cannot be motivated by school or college alone 50
- Claim: An action is morally correct if the amount of good that results from the action is greater than the amount of bad that results from the action.Reason: When assessing the morality of an action, the results of the action are more important than the i 50
- Most homes in the northeastern United States where winters are typically cold have traditionally used oil as their major fuel for heating Last heating season that region experienced 90 days with below normal temperatures and climate forecasters predict th 82
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate.Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. 75
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 241, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'laws'' or 'law's'?
Suggestion: laws'; law's
...has not been significant time since the laws implementation. How can the newspaper i...
^^^^
Line 7, column 319, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...self outweighs the waste disposal fees. Also there is no certainty that the resident...
^^^^
Line 7, column 443, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ulge themselves in recycling the waste. Also no guarantees can be made about the suc...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...n which is certainly not salubrious. Hence nothing conclusively can be said about ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 28.0 12.9520958084 216% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2489.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 498.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99799196787 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72397222731 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6753446945 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419678714859 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 760.5 705.55239521 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 21.725704672 57.8364921388 38% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 80.2903225806 119.503703932 67% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.064516129 23.324526521 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.32258064516 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.88822355289 232% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197433280438 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590116324737 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484843194559 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126120778167 0.128457276422 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0524414050532 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.1 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 63.7 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.4 12.197005988 69% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.42 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.44 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.