"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 years, however, the town's residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years. Next month the amount of recycled material—which includes paper, plastic, and metal—should further increase, since charges for pickup of other household garbage will double. Furthermore, over 90 percent of the respondents to a recent survey said that they would do more recycling in the future. Because of our town's strong commitment to recycling, the available space in our landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted."
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 author concludes that the available space in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted because the number of residents have been recycling double in the past 2 years and the local government body is planning to double the charges for picking up garbage. The argument is based on several unconvincing assumptions.
Firstly, the author prediction that since the residents of the town have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years, there will be a significant decline in the amount of garbage. But if earlier the residents where doing negligible recycling and now that amount is doubled, it will not add up to make a significant difference. So the author must understand the earlier recycling pattern of the residents.
Secondly, the survey conducted on the residents have several loopholes. The 90 percent of the respondents in the survey who said they would do more recycling in future, might be the ones who are already doing recycling and the remaining 20 percent residents might be the ones who never took part in recycling and according to the survey they will not recycle even in the future. If it is a small town then that 20 percent can make a big mark.
Finally, an average household can recycle its waste only to a certain extend. There will always be a certain amount of garbage which will be generated by every household and increasing the charges for picking up of household garbage will not have a major impact on the amount of garbage produced by every household. This increase in charges might cause a backlash from the residents.
In conclusion, the author's argument that the available space in the landfill should last for considerably longer than predicted is seriously flawed. Since the survey conducted is not an accurate representation of how many more residents will start recycling and increasing the charges for garbage pickup might not have much positive impact as expected by the author.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-10-07 | joenen | 60 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 75 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 159, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...y who said they would do more recycling in future, might be the ones who are already doin...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 380, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ey will not recycle even in the future. If it is a small town then that 20 percent...
^^
Line 7, column 71, Rule ID: SOME_EXTEND[1]
Message: Did you mean 'extent' ("extent" is a noun, "extend" is a verb)?
Suggestion: extent
...can recycle its waste only to a certain extend. There will always be a certain amount ...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...om the residents. In conclusion, the authors argument that the available space in th...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.214899713467 0.25644967241 84% => OK
Verbs: 0.166189111748 0.15541462614 107% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0888252148997 0.0836205057962 106% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0630372492837 0.0520304965353 121% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0171919770774 0.0272364105082 63% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12893982808 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0687679083095 0.0416121511921 165% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.73086729826 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0114613180516 0.026700313972 43% => Some infinitives wanted.
Particles: 0.00573065902579 0.001811407834 316% => OK
Determiners: 0.140401146132 0.113004496875 124% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0487106017192 0.0255425247493 191% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.0200573065903 0.0127820249294 157% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1973.0 2731.13054187 72% => OK
No of words: 329.0 446.07635468 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.99696048632 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25891501996 4.57801047555 93% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.370820668693 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.300911854103 0.287650121315 105% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.203647416413 0.208842608468 98% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.148936170213 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73086729826 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 149.0 207.018472906 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.452887537994 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 45.2472333673 52.1807786196 87% => OK
How many sentences: 13.0 20.039408867 65% => OK
Sentence length: 25.3076923077 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 85.7926494417 57.7814097925 148% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.769230769 141.986410481 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.3076923077 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.769230769231 0.724660767414 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 55.398877718 51.9672348444 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.67441860465 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.298267668793 0.441005458295 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.1191512631 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0470277052669 0.0829849096947 57% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613471954355 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.230770896489 0.147661913831 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135554587313 0.193483328276 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0860529340862 0.0970749176394 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.393850543657 0.42659136922 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.121798962962 0.0774707102158 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.212655143594 0.312017818177 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0656489783879 0.0698173142475 94% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.