AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a high level of coherence and connectivity. The ideas are well-organized and flow smoothly from one paragraph to the next. Each paragraph focuses on a specific point, and the writer uses transitional words and phrases effectively to connect ideas and create logical progression throughout the essay.
Word structure: 5/6
The essay shows good word structure overall. The writer effectively uses a range of vocabulary and employs appropriate and precise language to convey their points. There are a few instances where the word choice could be slightly improved for clarity or precision, but overall, the language is clear and appropriate for the task.
Paragraph structure and formation: 5.5/6
The essay exhibits well-structured paragraphs. Each paragraph has a clear topic sentence that introduces the main idea, and the following sentences provide supporting evidence, reasoning, and examples. The writer effectively uses topic sentences and transitions to ensure coherence and flow between paragraphs.
Language and grammar: 5.5/6
The language and grammar in the essay are strong. The writer demonstrates a good command of English and uses sentence structures effectively. There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward sentence structures, but they do not significantly impede understanding or detract from the overall quality of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5/6
The essay employs a varied and appropriate range of vocabulary. The writer effectively uses words and phrases that are suitable for the topic and convey their ideas clearly. There are a few instances where the writer could have used more precise or specific vocabulary choices, but overall, the vocabulary and word expression enhance the clarity and effectiveness of the essay.
Overall, the essay demonstrates strong coherence and connectivity, solid word structure, well-structured paragraphs, good language and grammar, and appropriate vocabulary and word expression. The minor areas for improvement do not significantly detract from the quality of the essay, resulting in a score of 5.5 out of 6.
turbojuly wrote:
Hi guys, can you please evaluate this attempt? Thank you!
“The computerized on-board warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners will virtually solve the problem of midair plane collisions. One plane’s warning system can receive signals from another’s transponder – a radio set that signals a plane’s course – in order to determine the likelihood of a collision and recommend evasive action.”
The argument claims that midair plane collisions will be avoided thanks to a new computerized onboard warning system that will be installed in commercial airliners. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and provides a distorted view of the situation. Additionally, the conclusion of the argument relies on several assumptions for which there is no evidence. Therefore, the argument is far from being convincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily claims that by installing the system in commercial airliners the problem of midair plane collisions will be solved. This statement is a stretch, as it relies on the assumption that the system will be installed in all commercial airliners. This may not be the case. For example, the system may be too expensive, and the costs may outweigh the benefits. Clearly, in this situation, many commercial airliners would avoid its implementation and the problem of midair collisions will persist. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how many airliners are going to install the new system, otherwise, the reasoning looks very superficial.
Second, the argument assumes that the system will be always able to determine the likelihood of a collision. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim, as the argument does not demonstrate any link between receiving radio signals and correctly determining the likelihood of a collision. It could be the situation that another plane's transponder may not be able to send signals, or that the likelihood of a collision estimated by the system is not accurate. In this situation, the system would be far from being effective. If the argument had provided evidence of how the system is going to determine the likelihood of a collision, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument omits several questions. Are commercial airliners the only ones addressed by the problem of midair collisions? Is the system fast enough in predicting the likelihood of a collision to help pilots correct their trajectory? Is an insufficient on-board system the main cause of midair collisions, or are there other factors that should be evaluated? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all relevant facts, for instance addressing how many airliners are going to implement the system and how precise its predictions are going to be. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this situation, the argument fails to obtain such a result, as it is not stated whether pilots will be able to correct their actions in time thanks to the system. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.