Replacing the Mathescam bridge, which links Ottenville with Tottenville, will prove far less beneficial than would be repairing of existing structure. The project will unjustly hurt drivers, because the Ottenville mayor recommended - shortly before the $12 million new bridge proposal was announced - that bridge tolls be raised by 50 percent. Since drivers' main complaints have been uneven pavements and closed lanes, the Mathescam Bridge Authority should not hike tolls and should instead repair the existing bridge, shifting maintenance crews to late evenings, when far fewer drivers are on the roads.
The argument claims that replacing the Mathescam Bridge will unjustly hurt drivers by raising tolls. Additionally, the argument assumes that since uneven pavements and closed lanes are drivers' main concerns and these should be addressed by repairing the existing bridge. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which the argument could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which supporting evidence is not presented. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
First, the argument assumes that tolls will be hiked after the new bridge is constructed. This claim is supported by the mayor's recommendation which occurred shortly before the plans for the new bridge were disclosed. There is no evidence which suggests that the two announcements are correlated. It might be possible that the city needs more revenues to maintain city transport for which it needs increased tolls. These hikes may still be implemented after the existing bridge is repaired, and hence the claim that repairing the new bridge would not hurt drivers is unjustified.
Second, the argument assumes that the problems of uneven pavements and closed lanes would be alleviated by repairing the existing bridge during night shifts when there are fewer drivers on the road. This assumptions has two major loopholes. It is assumed that replacing the bridge will have no effect on these problems. Additionally, there is no data which suggests that there are fewer drivers during late night. Construction of the new bridge might provide alternate route for drivers and hence lead to fewer closed lanes due to traffic. Without evidence supporting this claim, it can be assumed that repairing the new bridge will only add to these problems rather than solving them.
Finally, the argument fails to answer several necessary questions. For example, how long would the construction of new bridge take? What will be the cost of repairing the new bridge and would that lead to an increase in taxes or tolls? How will the new bridge address the drivers' existing issues like uneven pavements and closed lanes?
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing due to the above mentioned reasons. There are several assumptions for which no supporting evidence is provided. The argument could be considerably if these evidences are provided while also answering further key questions.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-02-23 | jaivardhan | 58 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 387 350
No. of Characters: 2000 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.435 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.592 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 145 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.826 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.329 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.391 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 237, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n concerns and these should be addressed by repairing the existing bridge. Stated...
^^
Line 3, column 122, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'mayors'' or 'mayor's'?
Suggestion: mayors'; mayor's
...tructed. This claim is supported by the mayors recommendation which occurred shortly b...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 399, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "needs increased" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'increasing' or 'to be increased'.
Suggestion: increasing; to be increased
...ntain city transport for which it needs increased tolls. These hikes may still be impleme...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 200, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...en there are fewer drivers on the road. This assumptions has two major loopholes. It...
^^^^
Line 5, column 217, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'have', 'haven'.
Suggestion: have; haven
...r drivers on the road. This assumptions has two major loopholes. It is assumed that...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, still, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2049.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29457364341 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67980458548 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 204.123752495 83% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43669250646 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 618.3 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.0059690865 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0869565217 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8260869565 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.91304347826 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242462018941 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0798742169473 0.0743258471296 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0684623410754 0.0701772020484 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.14822294938 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0623252650535 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.11 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
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: 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.