"Commuters complain that increased rush-hour traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center has doubled their commuting time. The favored proposal of the motorists' lobby is to widen the highway, adding an additional lane of traffic. But last year's addition of a lane to the nearby Green Highway was followed by a worsening of traffic jams on it. A better alternative is to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway. Many area residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage them to use bicycles to commute, and so would reduce rush-hour traffic rather than fostering an increase."
16.15
The argument says that a bicycle lane would inspire people to use bicycles to commute, leading to reduced rush-hour traffic. The problem of proposing the above solution is enhanced traffic on Blue Highway between the suburbs and the city center. There was a proposal to widen the highway, but similar action on nearby highway led to worsening traffic jams. To support the reasoning, the author states that many area residents are bicycle lovers; therefore, they would prefer bicycle lanes, action will reduce traffic on Blue Highway. However, stated in this way, the argument reveals examples of a leap of faith, flawed reasoning and ill-defined terminology. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation.
Further, it fails to mention several key factors based on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the situations due to which the Blue Highway is affected are the same as the situation of the nearby Green Highway. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For example, it is quite possible that the city in which Green Highway present population increased exponentially after widening the highway. This incidence could be because of several reasons, such as any national or international event in that particular and festival was organized during that period. Due to such events, it is pretty obvious that the traffic would be much higher, which might be the case with nearby Green Highway. The argument presented by the author regarding this point is not convincing. The argument would have been much clearer if it explicitly stated why the Green Highway widening was followed by increased traffic jams and how the situations of both highways are comparable.
Secondly, the argument claims that many residents are keen bicyclists. A bicycle lane would encourage people to use the bicycle to commute, leading to less rush-hour traffic. This is again a very weak and unsupported reasoning as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between increased traffic on Blue Highway and using a bicycle by people. Generally, people use bicycles to travel shorter distances while other vehicles such as cars and motor bikes travel longer distances. In the argument, nothing is given about the vehicles mostly run on Blue Highway. What are the ratios of people using this highway for commuting on bicycle, car, or bus? To illustrate, if most people use the Blue Highway for going to suburbs to city center or vise versa and distance between these two locations are too much to travel by bicycle, then there would be no result to have bicycle lane. As the people would not use the lane, leading any reduction in the traffic.
In fact, it is not clear how many people like bicycles in that area, how many people who use the bicycle and like the bicycle actually use that highway for commuting, and the most importance the distance between these two places. If the argument had provided evidence that regaridng the distance between these two places, people's vehicle preference and the percentage of people liking bicycles, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Without convincing answers to the above-mentioned questions, one is left wondering that the claim is more wishful than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. Similarities between Blue Highway and nearby Green Highway is important to know. Why the proposed plan to nearby Green Highway failed, what are significant vehicle sources leading to traffic in Blue Highway, and the role of the bicycle in traffic to Blue Highway are important points to know before making any claim.
In order to assess the merits of certain situations or decisions, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case knowing about the distance between suburbs and city center are very crucial. This distance would predominantly affect the use of bicycles for these people. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
- "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies 35
- Some young adults want independence from their parents as soon as possible. Other young adults prefer to live with their families for a longer time. Which of these situations do you think is better? 73
- Having children is less important than it was in the past 50
- “Globalization” refers to the growing economic and cultural interconnectedness between different regions of the world. Because modern transportation and electronic communication have made commercial relationships between distant people easier than eve 3
- In this age of automation many people complain that humans are becoming subservient to machines But in fact machines are continually improving our lives 50
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 931, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ations of both highways are comparable. Secondly, the argument claims that many ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 69, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... many people like bicycles in that area, how many people who use the bicycle and ...
^^
Line 34, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 55.5748502994 158% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3745.0 2260.96107784 166% => OK
No of words: 710.0 441.139720559 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27464788732 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.1619594331 4.56307096286 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71433738781 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 204.123752495 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.422535211268 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1147.5 705.55239521 163% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.21265797 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.0 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.48571428571 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.15768463074 155% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => 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: 0.261207636386 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760461204577 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0877562832505 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118645397145 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10072809218 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 98.500998004 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 931, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ations of both highways are comparable. Secondly, the argument claims that many ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 69, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... many people like bicycles in that area, how many people who use the bicycle and ...
^^
Line 34, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 55.5748502994 158% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3745.0 2260.96107784 166% => OK
No of words: 710.0 441.139720559 161% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27464788732 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.1619594331 4.56307096286 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71433738781 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 300.0 204.123752495 147% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.422535211268 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1147.5 705.55239521 163% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 35.0 19.7664670659 177% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.21265797 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.0 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2857142857 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.48571428571 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.15768463074 155% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => 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: 0.261207636386 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0760461204577 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0877562832505 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118645397145 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10072809218 0.0628817314937 160% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 98.500998004 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.