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

Essay topics:

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 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.

With a growing environmental consciousness around the world, we are more aware of the disastrous consequences of human-produced waste than ever. The chairperson of the West Egg Town Council released an optimistic statement regarding the space availability of their town’s landfill, citing survey and other evidence and claiming that the available space within the landfill is greater and can last much longer than previously predicted. While the chairperson’s claims are reasonable, their argument requires further clarification and evidence surrounding the initial lifetime prediction, accurate rates of recycling and landfill capacity, valid survey responses, and other factors that may affect the conclusion.

Both the first prediction and the following survey need to be carefully examined and evaluated to verify their validity and accuracy. Even though the five-year prediction was made by consultants, we need to examine their qualifications and associations as well as the comprehensiveness of their results. These consultants should be experienced in landfill and garbage disposal projects and should not be associated with related industries creating a conflict of interest—for example, purposely underreporting the lifetime of landfills such that landfill companies can be contracted for projects more often. In addition, we need clarification surrounding the margin of error of the five-year prediction, and whether the lifetime of the landfill was updated as operations began. The survey cited by the chairperson should also be evaluated based on its validity and scope. How many respondents were there and are they enough to extrapolate to the entire town? Are the respondents representative of typical households and businesses in the town? What is the potential value-action gap between their responses and their actual recycling rates? If the survey cannot satisfy questions such as those above, then further surveying is needed to contribute to the argument.

Then, we need to examine the actual rates of recycling its impacts on the town’s landfill. While the memorandum cited that the town’s residents have been recycling twice as much material as they did in previous years, it does not support that the current rate of recycling is enough to show a considerable effect on the trash sent to the landfill. The previous recycling rate may have been so low that a doubling of the rate is still lacking. Furthermore, just because more material is being recycled does not mean that the overall garbage disposal rate is lower—the residents of West Egg may produce even more un-recyclable trash that end up in the landfill with a rising recycling rate. Perhaps the town has reached a threshold in its recycling rate and further increases may be difficult. In order to support the chairperson’s argument, we need to establish an accurate relationship between the town’s recycling rate and the rate in which the landfill will fill up, taking into account overall trash disposal and the actual rates in which materials can be recycled in the near future.

Other factors such as the town’s recycling capacity, future technologies, and the presence of industry and businesses need to be taken into account. If the town has increased its recycling capacity in the past two years and in turn upped the town’s recycling rates, then individual behavior has less to contribute to the increased recycling than infrastructural capacity. Conversely, even if residents decide to continue to increase their recycling rates, effects on the landfill may be miniscule if the ability of the town to take in the increased materials do not improve as well, thus weakening the argument. If the town is able to invest in technologies, such as those that are conducive to higher recycling rates or further separate trash to categories such as composting, the chairperson’s optimism towards the landfill’s lifetime can be supported. Lastly, if there is a significant presence of businesses and industry in West Egg, then the predictions that are based on household residents may be inaccurate. Business and manufacturing have much higher quantities of waste, and depending on the nature of operations, may have a much higher or lower recycling rate than an average household. Compared to individuals, their behaviors are more obstinate and may not change unless of policy incentives.

While the chairperson’s statement includes evidence that may potentially support their argument that the landfill can last much longer than predicted, the logic is lacking supporting evidence. We need to examine the data and survey validity, perform accurate calculations of recycling and landfill rates, as well as take into account other technological and trash-contributing factors in order to fully support the argument and provide a more sound prediction for the landfill.

Votes
Average: 8 (3 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2022-01-29 5217232 63 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user mtjad :

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
With a growing environmental consciousne...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 608, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s do not improve as well, thus weakening the argument. If the town is able to inv...
^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, furthermore, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, still, then, thus, well, while, for example, in addition, such as, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 26.0 12.9520958084 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 33.0 11.1786427146 295% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 4164.0 2260.96107784 184% => OK
No of words: 755.0 441.139720559 171% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51523178808 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.24187593597 4.56307096286 115% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.24593473081 2.78398813304 117% => OK
Unique words: 316.0 204.123752495 155% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418543046358 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1306.8 705.55239521 185% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 10.0 2.70958083832 369% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.5705867401 57.8364921388 131% => OK
Chars per sentence: 154.222222222 119.503703932 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.962962963 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.62962962963 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.155347945054 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0481016719481 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409134122266 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0923293203605 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0248422615737 0.0628817314937 40% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.5 14.3799401198 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 35.61 48.3550499002 74% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.03 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.12 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 198.0 98.500998004 201% => Less difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 20.0 12.3882235529 161% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.

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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 757 350
No. of Characters: 4032 1500
No. of Different Words: 298 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.245 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.326 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.022 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 300 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 252 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 203 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 132 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.037 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.341 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.815 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.479 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5