AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity. The ideas flow logically from one point to the next, and there is a clear structure to the essay. Transitions between paragraphs and sentences are generally smooth, contributing to the overall coherence of the response.
Word Structure: 5/6
The word structure is strong, with a good range of vocabulary used appropriately. The essay effectively conveys the ideas and arguments without excessive wordiness or ambiguity. However, there are a few instances where sentences could be more concise for improved clarity.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 6/6
The essay is well-organized into paragraphs, each focusing on a specific aspect of the argument. Each paragraph contains a clear topic sentence, followed by supporting details and analysis. The organization enhances the readability and clarity of the response.
Language and Grammar: 5.5/6
The language and grammar are generally strong. There are only a few minor issues with sentence structure and agreement that do not significantly detract from the overall quality of the writing. Proofreading for such minor errors would further enhance the essay.
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5.5/6
The essay demonstrates a good range of vocabulary, and word expression is effective in conveying the intended meaning. However, there are a few instances where more precise or varied word choices could be used to strengthen the expression further.
Overall, this essay provides a well-structured and coherent response to the argument. It effectively identifies weaknesses in the argument's assumptions and provides thoughtful analysis. With some minor improvements in grammar and vocabulary, it could reach an even higher level of quality.
MatteoVannucchi wrote:
Hello everybody!
Could someone rate my first essay?
I followed the test's instructions and wrote the essay in a little less than 30 minutes.
This is the prompt:
"The country of Tarquinia has a much higher rate of traffic accidents per person than its neighbors, and in the vast majority of cases one or more drivers is found to be at fault in the courts. Therefore, Tarquinia should abolish driver-side seatbelts, airbags, and other safety measures that protect the driver, while new cars should be installed with a spike on the steering column pointed at the driver's heart. These measures will eliminate traffic accidents in Tarquinia by motivating drivers to drive safely."
Here is my essay:
The author builds his argument upon the fact that, since the neighboring cities have fewer accidents compared to Tarquinia, this means that the drivers aren’t conducting their vehicles safely and, thus, find themselves in car accidents. The author suggests removing safety measures from the new vehicles.
Despite coming to a reasonable conclusion, the argument makes use of a number of assumptions that are neither well developed or have enough evidence that prove they’d work.
In fact, there could be different reasons why there’s a higher accident rate in Tarquinia than in the cities nearby which could or couldn’t have to do with the drivers’ motivation to drive safely.
Furthermore, eliminating those measures might not prove to be the most effective measure. Finally, we have to consider the fact that the drivers may decide not to buy the new cars which, in turn, would make the author’s solution not applicable.
First of all, the author says that Tarquinia has a higher rate of accidents compared to neighboring cities. However, this could be because of different factors. What if the other cities have better pavemented roads? What if their population is composed of more experienced drivers? What if they have a higher per-capita income and, consequently, better cars which are equipped with safety measures that come into action when they perceive that an accident is about to happen?
The author fails to take into consideration this factors, which, if considered, would help clear out the reason of the difference between Tarquinia’s accident rate and the other cities’.
Second, the author didn’t consider how the drivers in Tarquinia could respond to the measures proposed in the argument. In fact, the measures could even be counter-productive.
Driving vehicles without any safety feature might make drivers scared as they might feel they’re at risk of injury or, even worse, death, in case something were to happen. This could, in turn, stress the drivers while at the wheel and, as stress doesn’t allow them to focus on the road, result in even more accidents.
Finally, the argument the author puts forth presents a final unfounded assumption. That is, the author says that Tarquinia should abolish safety measures like airbags and driver-side seatbelts. However, the old cars will still be around and equipped with those features as the new drivers might decide to opt out to buying a new car without those features. In fact, if the majority of the cars in Tarquinia were to remain the same and the reason that the author puts forth about why cars accidents appear were true, the proposed plan wouldn’t work as drivers would keep driving their old cars and wouldn’t be motivated to drive safely.
In conclusion, while the author’s thesis has some merits, a lot of factors have been left out in the development of the thesis which, consequently, weakens the conclusion that the writer makes about the result being less car accidents. Considering the status of neighboring cities, how the measure would affect the drivers, and whether the majority of cars would remain the old ones or be substituted by the new ones without safety measure, might strengthen the argument and give a better and more holistic view on whether the steps proposed are the right ones to take or need to be revised.
Thanks in advance,
Matteo
P.S. There might be a few grammar imperfections because I didn't re-read it after finishing it!