According to the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council, it would take a longer time for the landfill to be filled up than it was predicted two years ago with the current popularity of and booming societal committment to recyling. However, for the passage still lacks a considerable amount of evidence that could affect its argument's validity, in order to substantiate its claim, more time of evaluation and researching is needed.
The foremost evidence to collect and evaluate is the quantity of unrecyclable garbage in recent two years. The passage only mentions the increased amount of the recyclable garbage to bolster its claim that more recyling would protract the time given for the free space of landfill to run out. However, what the passage clearly omits is whether the unrecyclable garbage has also increased. If the collected data projects that there has been a similar rise in unrecyclable garbage for the last two years, it would completely refute and eventually weaken the passage's claim, as the rate of the landfill being piled up would in fact accelerate, regardless of the quantity of recycling.
On top of the quantity of unrecyclable garbage, the chairperson has to ascertain the reliability of the survey. The passage introduces a survey's result that holds propitious implications that more than "90 percent of the respondents" would eagerly recycle in the future. However, the passage does not further elaborate on the details of the survey, such as the size of respondents, locations, and the method. These multiple variables could negatively impugn the reliability of the survey. For example, if the survey was conducted through a volunteer method, its outcome would suffer from a serious bias, as the respondents would tend to have more interest in recycling more than the others. Likewise, if any of the aforementioned variables come into a play that questions the validity of the survey, the passage's argument would gravely lose its validity as well.
Last evidence to examine is the increase in the local consumption. The passage's main strength exudes from the fact that there has been an increase in recycling. Nevertheless, if the percent increase in recycling for the last two years is actually parsed to be comparable or correlated to that of consumption rise, that may indicate that the increase in recycling is just a byproduct of the overall risen consumption. In other words, for the last two years, people might not have performed recycling more individually - rather, an increase in consumption might have engendered a greater total quantity of garbage. Has this case been proved with the newly acquired evidence, the passage's argument further loses its strength.
To encapsulate everything, despite all the evidence compiled and studied, the passage fails to lend a cogent argument. In realtiy, the passage suffers from faulty reasonings
based on incomplete evidence. Thus, it can be concluded that it is too foolhardy to accept the passage's claim until further analyses of evidence as well as its implications are conducted.
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager One month ago all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one t
- The following appeared in a memorandum written by the chairperson of the West Egg Town Council Two years ago consultants predicted that West Egg s landfill which is used for garbage disposal would be completely filled within five years During the past two 63
- College students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field 100
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing an 90
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your 100
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 495 350
No. of Characters: 2523 1500
No. of Different Words: 225 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.717 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.097 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.827 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 115 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.765 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.584 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 136, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a survey' or simply 'surveys'?
Suggestion: a survey; surveys
...y of the survey. The passage introduces a surveys result that holds propitious implicatio...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 815, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'passages'' or 'passage's'?
Suggestion: passages'; passage's
...estions the validity of the survey, the passages argument would gravely lose its validit...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 678, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'passages'' or 'passage's'?
Suggestion: passages'; passage's
...d with the newly acquired evidence, the passages argument further loses its strength. ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, however, if, likewise, may, nevertheless, so, still, thus, well, as to, for example, in fact, such as, as well as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2595.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 495.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.24242424242 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71684168287 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93134830874 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484848484848 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 825.3 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5468114527 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.75 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.75 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.25 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.175384386215 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0504253630174 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0853496277851 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0903290219515 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0922570616449 0.0628817314937 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
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.