West Egg’s landfill
In this argument, the chairperson concludes that the available space in West Egg’s landfill won’t be filled within 3 years, instead should last for significantly longer than previous predicted. To justify this conclusion, the chairperson reasons that residents are recycling more materials than before in the past two years and this trend will last further because the charges for garbage pickup will double, and what’t more, in a recent survey, almost all of the respondents assert that they would do more recycling. It seems convincing at first glance. However, with some implicit holes that the chairperson ignores and lacks of specific evidences which ought to be presented in the memorandum, this argument may not be enough strong to lead to the previous conclusion.
First, the chairperson only provide the evidence regarding the amount of recycled material, and failed to present the information of non-recycled garbage. It cannot be assured that the amount of non-recycled material have the inverse relationship with that can be recycled. Perhaps the total amount of garbage are considerably increasing too. Although it is true that, residents have been recycling twice as much as before, it is more likely that the amount of non-recycled garbage are still increasing rapidly, which certainly can make the landfill be filled quickly than before. So if it is the case, without more decisive information regarding the amount of non-recycled material, this argument might be weakened.
Second, the chairperson failed to make an assumption that the increasing charges of garbage pickup can lead to more recycling behavior. As we all know, the amount of garbage produced every week in our life is almost inflexible. People won’t buy less food or things just because the garbage fees are double. Perhaps people will ignore the double charges since they are so puny among the outcome of daily life. Or perhaps people have been recycling best, they just cannot do better. Therefore, this evidence is based on a unwarranted assumption, which cannot convince me.
Finally, the chairperson cites a survey result which shows that almost all respondents are asserting that they will do more recycling in the future. Although it’s encouraged, this survey may be not as reliable as is in chairperson’s assumption. He or she ought to provide more evidence concerning whether the survey is statistically significant in numbers of respondents and representative of the overall residents in West Egg. Even though it is a reliable survey, these respondents are more likely to show their attitude toward recycling material, rather than a promise, since everyone knows the benefit of recycling garbage. So, the chairperson reasons these <span style="font-size: 19.36px;">unwarranted </span>evidences and they cannot potently prove previous conclusion.
To sum up, as I pointed before, the conclusion is based on certain unreliable reasons and lacks of more decisive evidences. To bolster this argument, the chairperson should make clear the comprehensive amount of various garbage and more warranted research on the residents’ behavior on recycling garbage.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2591 1500
No. of Different Words: 220 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.213 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.802 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.591 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.469 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 469, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...apos;t more, in a recent survey, almost all of the respondents assert that they would do m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 524, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...r. Therefore, this evidence is based on a unwarranted assumption, which cannot co...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, still, therefore, it is true, 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: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2719.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 490.0 441.139720559 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.54897959184 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22126227002 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475510204082 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 834.3 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.5764174755 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.590909091 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2727272727 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36363636364 5.70786347227 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.149324828995 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0459976242175 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0855700835735 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0874325042972 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0693884298179 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.21 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.