AWA Score: 5.5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good Luckdanarthurcoseru wrote:
Hello,
Would you be able to rate my AWA?
The following appeared as part of an editorial in an industry newsletter:
"While trucking companies that deliver goods pay only a portion of highway maintenance costs and no property tax on the highways they use, railways spend billions per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities. The government should lower the railroad companies’ property taxes, since sending goods by rail is clearly a more appropriate mode of ground transportation than highway shipping. For one thing, trains consume only a third of the fuel a truck would use to carry the same load, making them a more cost-effective and environmentally sound mode of transport. Furthermore, since rail lines already exist, increases in rail traffic would not require building new lines at the expense of taxpaying citizens."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument states that the government should consider lowering the railroad companies’ property taxes on the premise that sending goods by rail is more efficient, environmentally-sound and create less of a burden on the taxpayer. Additionally, the argument is made through a comparation with highway shipping companies which do not pay any property tax on the highway facilities that they use. I believe the argument to be flawed as it assumes that all highway shipping companies use fuel-based vehicles, that railroad shipping is not logistically different than highway shipping, and that owning the railroads on which they operate does not create a competitive advantage for railroad companies that justifies the tax burden that they have to carry.
Firstly, the argument states that railroad shipping is more environmentally friendly than highway shipping as trains consume less fuel compared to trucks when carrying the same load of goods. However, technological advancement within the electrical vehicle (EV) space has been steep with numerous new electrical trucks being developed as well as trucks running on hydrogen, which is more environmentally efficient. Considering the fact that many companies are updating their fleets to those specifications, the arguments’ assumption can easily be deemed invalid.
Secondly, the argument assumes that railroad shipping is a more appropriate method of ground transportation and it should be prioritized against highway shipping. However, logistically, using trucks to ship goods on the ground can be way more flexible than using trains. Railroads, while giving access to a large number of cities, usually do not provide easy access to neighborhoods, the city center or other particular locations within the city. More often than not, many shipments that are delivered through trains have to be loaded onto trucks for delivery to their final destination. Using trucks from the start to the end of the journey can be more efficient in those situations. Not having to take the shipments out of the train and load them into the trucks reduces the risk of losing a parcel and saves valuable time.
Lastly, the argument is based on the premise that railroad companies pay billions of dollars per year maintaining and upgrading their facilities while highway shipping companies do not have to carry the same cost burden. However, the argument fails to recognize the competitive advantage and benefits that are gained through owning the transportation network. Trucks on public highways can encounter traffic, which slows delivery times, and bad roads, which can increase truck maintenance costs. By owning and investing in their rail networks, railroad companies can improve their tracks in order to avoid damage to the trains and have a competitive advantage over the highway shipping companies by having the ability to avoid traffic (by restricting access to the railroads). If a highway shipping company owned its own highway, it would have the same competitive advantage, however, it would also have to pay property taxes.
In conclusion, while the argument does make valid points with regards to the potential efficiency that is achieved through railroad shipping, it fails to consider the more environmentally friendly nature of new electrical trucks, the efficiency that is achieved when goods are shipped through the highway system and the competitive advantage that is gained through owning your own transport network.