The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
"Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The argument that the number of shoppers in central plaza has been steadily decreasing due to the increase in the number of skateboard users in the plaza may seem tenable at first glance. However, the conclusion of prohibiting skateboarding in central plaza relies on the assumption that decrease in shoppers in central plaza is arrantly due to increase in the popularity of skateboard seems specious.
Firstly, the writer assumes that the wane in their business is utterly due to the popularity of skatebords. Their might be other possible reason, other than skateboarding due to which shoppers don’t prefer coming to plaza, like there might have opened more plazas, which are waxed in size than this plaza and more accessible. These new plazas might be offereing more sales than the central plaza. If the writer have covered these evidence it might have strengthen his conclusion.
Secondly, the writer assumes that the increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throught out the plaza is due to the skateboard users. This assumption doesn’t seems apt because the central plaza workers might be responsible for this. We can’t simply assert that this is due to skateboard users as we don’t have a strong evidence.
Furthermore, the writer doesn’t exegesis this problem. Shoppers stemmed comming to the plaza because of the unhygienic condition in plaza and surly shop-keepers behaviour. His argument would be strengthened considerably if he defines the scope of the problem more clearly and submit more conclusive evidence.
In conclusion, it would not be wise for the writer to take such an action with complete evaluate of the problem, it will only impede the business of the central plaza.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 403, 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.
...eing more sales than the central plaza. If the writer have covered these evidence ...
^^
Line 3, column 459, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...ve covered these evidence it might have strengthen his conclusion. Secondly, the writer...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1458.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 277.0 441.139720559 63% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.26353790614 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.07962216107 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82029183919 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 137.0 204.123752495 67% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.494584837545 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 450.0 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.4535640979 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.153846154 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3076923077 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.76923076923 5.70786347227 119% => 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 : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.313468100751 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.126667406813 0.0743258471296 170% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118012297562 0.0701772020484 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188974846042 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.13046827263 0.0628817314937 207% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.