In the editorial published in the local newspaper, opponents argue that adding a bicycle lane to Blue Highway will reduce rush-hour traffic, citing commuter concerns about their commuting time being doubled. Opponents point to the worsening of traffic congestion during the establishment of a lane on Green Highway last year, as well as that, many neighborhood residents are avid bikers, as proof of their position. However, three questions must be addressed before this recommendation may be properly examined.
To begin with, how similar are Green Highway and Blue Highway? Is there enough information that the two motorways are comparable enough to make broad generalizations about them? It is possible that Green Highway passes through a city while Blue Highway passes through rural suburbs. Perhaps Green Highway is a federal highway that has largely been abandoned, resulting in poor highway maintenance and increased commuting time, whereas Blue Highway is a well-funded state highway that is in pristine condition. The opponents' advice will be weakened due to the realism of these events.
Second, are the residents of the region the primary users of Blue Highway? In other words, opponents estimate they make up a big portion of highway commuters. This, however, may not be the case. It's probable that only a few individuals live along Blue Highway, resulting in a barely noticeable difference in traffic during rush hour. Further, it is also likely that the majority of people in the area work from home and don't travel on the Blue Highway. If these eventualities are found to be plausible, the opponents' case will be significantly weakened.
Third, will the creation of a new bicycle lane increase traffic on Blue Highway by causing more accidents? Adding a bike lane, which could exacerbate the issues mentioned by Blue Highway commuters, will be counterproductive. The addition of a bicycle lane may result in more collisions between bicycles and other automobiles. Additionally, the time required to obtain medical attention and clear up any possible incidents will result in an increase in traffic. If these possibilities are true, the opponents' recommendations will be invalid.
To summarize, the recommendation is severely faulty as it stands due to its dependence on multiple unfounded assumptions. More evidence (ideally in the form of a parametric research study) will be requested from the opponents to back up their allegations. These will be critical in determining whether the proposed recommendation to add a bicycle lane to Blue Highway is plausible.
- The following appeared in a letter to the editor of a Batavia newspaper The department of agriculture in Batavia reports that the number of dairy farms throughout the country is now 25 percent greater than it was 10 years ago During this same time period 58
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment building to its manager One month ago all the showerheads on the first five floors of Sunnyside Towers were modified to restrict the water flow to approximately one third 69
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company According to a recent report from our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any ot 59
- 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 Opponents 65
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 83
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 408 350
No. of Characters: 2121 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.494 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.199 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.959 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.545 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.011 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.591 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.049 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2016.0 2260.96107784 89% => OK
No of words: 384.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4267276788 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94664191372 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.484375 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 632.7 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.1266701816 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.0 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2857142857 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42857142857 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.332033140646 0.218282227539 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.102157538034 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0803576003549 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.183432264907 0.128457276422 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0458072143672 0.0628817314937 73% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.