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."
Centerville has proposed a petition to ban cell phone use on sidewalks in order to address an increased occurance of "sidewalk rage." Although the ban is proposed with good intentions, the assumptions they use to support this policy need to be further investigated. Without furter information, the cell phone ban arguments are incredibly weak.
The first assumption that requires further investigation is the assumption that there is a direct correlation between cell phone use and the increased assaults and property damage. In order to get at the heart of the issue, other outside factors must be taken into consideration. When investigating the causes of property damage, we must understand the context behind these claims - was there a storm and property was damaged due to natural causes? Is there urbanization of certain areas and, as a result, an increase in population that has lead to vandalism? Additionally, increased assaults may be occuring in the general vacinity as a result of larger problems: increased unemployment, increased local gang violence, or evern hotter weather which can lead to higher rates of agitation. These are just a few instances where the issue of property damage and assaults would not necessarly be mitigated with a bank on cell phone use on sidewalks.
The argument also highlights the ban's effectiveness in Middleton, where reported incidents of sidewalk crime has decreased. There is an underlying assumption here that Middleton and Centerville are similar enough towns and that Centerville will see the same results that Middelton has experienced. In order to strengthen this argument, we must know the similarities and differences between the two towns. The ban has assuaged sidewalk crime in Middleton but what was the climate like before this ban? How many pedestrians walked Middleton? For all we know, Middleton is a commuter town with most of it's residents driving in cars so, naturally, hearing no complaints is understandable. Centerville could, in contrast, have a higher popoulation of people using sidewalks and, therefore, encounter different scenarios and everyday normalcies on their sidewalks. The argument treats Middleton and Centerville as comparable towns that will experience the same results should the ban be implemented. Middleton's differences as a community need to be addressed in order for this argument to be strengthened.
Lastly, the reported number of incidents decreased significantly in Middleton. This is vague terminology that needs to be quantitied as well are qualified. What does a signficant decrease mean exactly? How much did the reported number of incidents go down? For instance, if there were only 2 reported instances of sidewalk crime reported last year and, this year, it went down to 1, that is a singnificant decreased of 50%. That is an impressive figure but, in presented in context, it would have less weight and significance when pushing forward a legislation.
The ban on cell phone use on sidewalks is to help mitigate sidewalk crime is a step in the right direction in addressing an issue. In order for the success of this ban or any proposition, many assumptions must be addressed. Should the questions presented in this rebuttal not be addressed, this argument to ban cell phones is incredibly weak.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | Chayank_11 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-15 | HANZALA13 | 16 | view |
| 2019-11-28 | zzk81 | 69 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | somba | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-24 | Venkateshwar | 63 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 27 15
No. of Words: 525 350
No. of Characters: 2713 1500
No. of Different Words: 254 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.787 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.168 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.013 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 165 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 139 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 99 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.444 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.01 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.407 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.269 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 217, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...h good intentions, the assumptions they use to support this policy need to be furth...
^^^
Line 9, column 34, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'bans'' or 'ban's'?
Suggestion: bans'; ban's
.... The argument also highlights the bans effectiveness in Middleton, where repor...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, may, so, then, therefore, well, for instance, in contrast, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2803.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 525.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33904761905 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13474117514 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 204.123752495 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.508571428571 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 872.1 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.8847251962 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.807692308 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1923076923 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.84615384615 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0559972827533 0.218282227539 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0156450371955 0.0743258471296 21% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0203253140232 0.0701772020484 29% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0347241384224 0.128457276422 27% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0181282040918 0.0628817314937 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.