Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic, increasing commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown. The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving one’s car downtown. Downtown traffic almost immediately subsided in Loft and the local government also raised much needed money for fixing roads elsewhere. Obviously, this plan should be implemented in Zurzi in order to solve the brewing traffic congestion problem.
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 author’s claim than certain steps should be taken to solve an acute problem of traffic jams in the downtown Zurzi. To support this conclusion, the author draws comparison with the nearby city of Loft where the small tax introduction helped to decrease traffic congestion, along with raising money to fix roads elsewhere. At first glimpse, the author’s logical chain seems to be reasonable, but further analysis of assumptions is necessary to prove its viability.
First and foremost, there is, clearly, a failure to mention the reasons for the increased traffic in Zurzi. Were their any major events in the downtown happening around that particular time, such as global summit of world leaders which caused the flow of foreign visitors to Zurzi? In this case, a drastic measure of introducing the taxes seem like cracking the nut with the sledgehammer to solve the traffic problem. If the problem has a transient nature, then no measure is needed, the traffic congestion will fade away once high-profile meetings end, no credit should be attributed to the introduced tax policy, if so.
Second, the author takes a doubtful route of comparing two places which might not even stand close to each other by many parameters. Zurzi can be located high in mountains, and Loft can be a flat city? This mere difference can make the plan with taxes that worked for Loft not working for Zurzi.
Finally, let’s assume that mentioned above assumptions are addressed in the passage and small taxes are introduced in Zurzi. This is where the most dubious assumption lies. How can the author make sure that applying certain tax will lead the desired driver’s behaviour and decrease traffic congestion in Zurzi? Imagine, there is no alternative route, and people still have to commute to work and willing to pay the tax, where is the guarantee that this plan will subside the traffic jams? While the author’s conclusion about local governments may raise money to fix some other roads, there is a loose correlation between one behavior certainly leading to another, desired done.
To recap, the author’s claim may hold some merit if questions raised in the essay are answered. Otherwise, the argument that plan of introducing a small tax in Zurzi will decrease traffic congestion is not convincing.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-12-05 | Nurika | 77 | view |
| 2020-08-07 | Sourabhpardeshi | 45 | view |
| 2020-08-07 | Sourabhpardeshi | 27 | view |
| 2019-07-15 | empyreal092 | 82 | view |
- Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic increasing commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving 77
- Claim In order to help small businesses thrive government should play a minimal role in private business matters Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be s 66
- Claim In order to help small businesses thrive government should play a minimal role in private business matters Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In developing and supporting your position be s 66
- Educators should base their assessment of students learning not on students grasp of facts but on the ability to explain the ideas trends and concepts that those facts illustrate Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disag 83
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 379 350
No. of Characters: 1862 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.412 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.913 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.504 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.294 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.806 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.529 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.32 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 473, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... has a transient nature, then no measure is needed, the traffic congestion will f...
^^
Line 2, column 624, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ed to the introduced tax policy, if so. Second, the author takes a doubtful rout...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, may, second, so, still, then, while, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1926.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.08179419525 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61719879529 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 214.0 204.123752495 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.564643799472 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 587.7 705.55239521 83% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.8519844453 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.294117647 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2941176471 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05882352941 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.258657414472 0.218282227539 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0804613780543 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0694130743779 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.141447560244 0.128457276422 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474101425307 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.77 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.