Traffic here in Waymarsh is becoming a problem. Although just three years ago a state traffic survey showed that the typical driving commuter took 20 minutes to get to work, the commute now takes closer to 40 minutes, according to the survey just completed. Members of the town council already have suggested more road building to address the problem, but as well as being expensive, the new construction will surely disrupt some of our residential neighborhoods. It would be better to follow the example of the nearby city of Garville. Last year Garville implemented a policy that rewards people who share rides to work, giving them coupons for free gas. Pollution levels in Garville have dropped since the policy was implemented, and people from Garville tell me that commuting times have fallen considerably. There is no reason why a policy like Garville's shouldn't work equally well in Waymarsh.
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 argument states that, according to the survey, people are reported to have longer commuting time than it was three years ago so the traffic becomes problematic in Waymarsh. Therefore, the argument suggests to implement the policy which has been carried out in Garville last year and successfully solved the traffic issue there. However, the suggestion appear to be specious upon closer examination since it fails to include some specific evidences that may weaken the argument.
First of all, the argument cites the data from a previously done survey and it shows that people’s commuting time are 20 minutes longer than it was 3 years ago. Therefore, it is suggested that implementing should help alleviate the situation. However, the argument doesn’t provide some specific evidences about the survey and its content to determine if the data which is collected with it is valid or not. For example, the survey may have largely targeted people who don’t commute to their workplaces 3 year ago, and it certainly leads to a significantly lower commuting time. Also, is the commuting time a focused question on that survey or it’s just a question on a 10-page questionnaire? People tend to get rid of tediously long page by randomly giving answers to fill the sheet as soon as possible. Consequently, without the presence of the evidences of the survey, the argument appears to be specious.
Secondly, the argument asserts that the policy which has been implemented in Garville can also relieve the traffic situation here in Waymarsh. Although it seems logical and applicable, the argument neglect some vital evidences to strengthen its suggestion. For example, the difference of jobs engaged by people from these cities may react differently to the policy. If in Garville there is a centralized industrial or business area, people can surely share rides to work since a large amount of employees work in a same place whereas people in Waymarsh may work at different places which are far from each other, the share-ride policy is certainly not working. Thus, the argument has to provide more specific evidences of these cities to enhance its suggestion.
Finally, even though the above situations aren’t happening, the argument cannot posit that the reduction of pollution can be achieved with the policy in Waymarsh as it does in Garville. We have to ensure the evidence that the pollution in Waymarsh is mainly from vehicles. Granted that the emission of gas from vehicles can cause environmental pollution, we cannot warrant the pollution in Waymarsh is due to large quantity of vehicles. For example, the air pollution may be exacerbated by local factories where people burn charcoal and produce carbon dioxide and other toxic compounds. If this is true, then the reduce of vehicles seems to be in vain to lower pollution level in Waymarsh.
To sum up, although the argument seems to be logical and provide a constructive suggestion. There are some specific evidences are required, however, to guarantee its suggestion is well-supported. In order to make the argument more persuasive and believable, evidences such as the validity of the survey and its content, the difference between the essence of working areas in Waymarsh and Garville as well as the main source of pollution in Waymarsh are important to better assess the argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-26 | damodardatta | 33 | view |
| 2022-09-01 | pope | 68 | view |
| 2022-07-25 | malav312 | 73 | view |
| 2021-11-08 | vikaarzumanyan | 55 | view |
| 2021-10-04 | miqbalhilmi | 73 | view |
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little imp 55
- Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.Specific Task Instruction: Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and exp 70
- It is more harmful to compromise one’s own beliefs than adhere to them. 58
- According to a recent report, cheating among college and university students ison the rise. However, Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating byadopting an honor code, which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academicendea 49
- TOEFL essay:People remember special gifts or presents that they have received. Why? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 70
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 549 350
No. of Characters: 2736 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.841 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.984 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.72 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 211 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 168 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 126 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 69 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.87 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.945 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.826 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.52 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.098 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 202, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'suggests implementing'.
Suggestion: suggests implementing
...ic in Waymarsh. Therefore, the argument suggests to implement the policy which has been carried out i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 167, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... be achieved with the policy in Waymarsh as it does in Garville. We have to ensur...
^^
Line 7, column 616, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
... toxic compounds. If this is true, then the reduce of vehicles seems to be in vain to lowe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 149, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pecific evidences are required, however, to guarantee its suggestion is well-supp...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, whereas, as to, for example, such as, as well as, first of all, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 38.0 16.3942115768 232% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2833.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18864468864 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85606077471 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479853479853 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 900.9 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.2393615229 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.173913043 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7391304348 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73913043478 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.199101662212 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0580363686474 0.0743258471296 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0720232827127 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114423449008 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0757064529208 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.8 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 139.0 98.500998004 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.