Downtown Zurzi is becoming increasingly congested with traffic, increasing the commuting time for those who work downtown or near downtown. The nearby city of Loft was faced with the same problem several years ago and implemented a small weekly tax for driving one's car downtown, Downtown traffic almost immediately subsided in Loft and the local government also raised much-needed money for fixing the roads elsewhere. obviously, this plan should be implemented in Zurzi in order to solve the brewing traffic congestion problem.
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.
Author argues that the traffic congestion in Zurzi’s downtown can be mitigated by implementing a small weekly tax on the vehicles that drive there. To bolster his conclusion he provides the evidence of the Loft that faced the same problem that almost immediately subsided with the introduction of the weekly test. However, the author’s argument falls week because of missing evidences like negation of other plausible causes, evincing the similarity of the people travelling in both downtowns and like.
Firstly, the author must corroborate his claim, that the traffic congestion problem of Zurzi downtown would be solved like in the case of Loft’s downtown, with the evidence showing that both the towns share similar characteristics and features. Was the congestion at Loft as bad as the traffic problem here? It is possible that even after levying those taxes and obviating some traffic that was obviated in the Loft’s downtown, the results in Zurzi are not substancial enough or the congestion levels do not drop to our requirement.
Secondly the suthor must also provide the evidence that the poeple in Zurzi are not economically strong enough to p ay the small weekly tax. It is quite possible that since they have their workplaces in or near the downtown, they might have o other option but to use that downtown road. And also, that they are well off to pay the menial amount of tax that is levyed on them unlike the people using Loft’s downtown who might not be as strong financially to give that tax or that they might have an alternative route which could be used for free. Without this evidence, the argument cannot be concluded strongly and these evidence are vital to make or break the argument.
Thirdly, we need a report that exhaustively takes into account all the alternative solutions possible for regulating traffic at the downtown. Will building a bypass road not help the traffic? What are the possibilities of the alternative roads and an engineeres estimation of the extent to which it would resolve our problem. Also, is there a scope of widening the roads of Zurzi’s downtown. How would that affect the traffic present. What percentage of people need to use that particular downtown road indispensibly. These are critical to build the argument strong.
In sum, although the argument sounds good, the above mentioned evidences are cardinally needed to reach the conclusion proposed by the author. It is these evidences that can corroborate or dismantle the author’s claim. Without them, the argument remains spurious with loopholes and we must be skeptical of it’s success.
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal. Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own 94
- The following appeared in the editorial section of a national news magazine:[/b]"The rating system for electronic games is similar to the movie rating system in that it provides consumers with a quick reference so that they can determine if the subject ma 83
- The following is a letter to the head of the tourism bureau on the island of Tria."Erosion of beach sand along the shores of Tria Island is a serious threat to our island and our tourist industry. In order to stop the erosion, we should charge people for 83
- Collectors prize the ancient life- size clay statuesof human figuresmade on Kali Island but have long wondered how Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologist have recently discoveredmolds of human heads a 62
- Women and men have inherent physical differences, they are not equally suitable for many tasks.To what extent do you agree or disagree with the topic. In what way can your stand be challenged. Discuss giving suitable examples. 58
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'well']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.221327967807 0.25644967241 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.156941649899 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0663983903421 0.0836205057962 79% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0603621730382 0.0520304965353 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0382293762575 0.0272364105082 140% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.120724346076 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0402414486922 0.0416121511921 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82316769335 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0221327967807 0.026700313972 83% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.118712273642 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0281690140845 0.0255425247493 110% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0261569416499 0.0127820249294 205% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2647.0 2731.13054187 97% => OK
No of words: 430.0 446.07635468 96% => OK
Chars per words: 6.15581395349 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.362790697674 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.286046511628 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.227906976744 0.208842608468 109% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.139534883721 0.135150697306 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82316769335 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 207.018472906 105% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504651162791 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 56.743284057 52.1807786196 109% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 21.5 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.2595323668 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.35 141.986410481 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.2022227129 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.55 0.724660767414 76% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 50.1046511628 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.49606299213 1.8405768891 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.409004603339 0.441005458295 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137560936389 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0923028751024 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.578237179409 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.136904880703 0.147661913831 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.177960330259 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0689177283658 0.0970749176394 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.489530451517 0.42659136922 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0778837560556 0.0774707102158 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.298047894014 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0573898609065 0.0698173142475 82% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.