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."
With the information provided, the assumptions leading to conclusion remains unfounded. This argument is well presented yet fat-fetched. This argument claims that a considerable number of shoppers in Central Plaze have been diminishing over the past two years, whereas the number of skateboarding has augmented. Hence, this conclusion is ill- founded.
The primary assumption underlying the author of the assumptions that for sake of increasing of skateboarding and vandalism sale of has decreased. Nevertheless, he fails to preclude other possibility reason that there is other approach for this event. As a matter of fact it might be possible that quality of product has changed, the price of the goods has increased suddenly. It might be possible that poor marketing, lack of proper environment, devoid of transportation might lead to this occurrence. Indeed, vandalism is not the sole reason for decreasing. Want of such prudent answers makes the author assumptions full of holes. So to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about other reason for this event.
Furthermore, the author of the assumption avers that forestalling vandalism in Central Plaza is the most striking method for their business in Central Plaza. However, he fails to take other possible reason into account that is so considerably indispensable and imperative such as increasing advertisement in the city is highly crucial. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have provided information about other solutions for enhancing goods not just forbidding skateboarding.
Moreover, the author of the assumptions assumes that many owner believe that the event. As a matter of fact, we know that the word 'Many' is used in a it cannot be sure if it is representative of the all people. Without considering and ruling other possible reason into account we cannot generalize to majority of people. So, to reinforce the argument the author should have discussed about detail of many that is greatly ambiguous.
In short, as discussed, the lack of vital evidence enumerated above. The conclusion cannot be tenable. The author of the assumption should have provided information about detail of many and other reason for decreasing such as competitor and mall shop in the vicinity there. On the other hand to make a rigid conclusion is very myopic observation method. After all, feckless attempt, with a fallible method could not be a fool's errand.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
..., we know that the word Many is used in a it cannot be sure if it is representati...
^
Line 5, column 147, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'a' or 'it'?
Suggestion: a; it
..., we know that the word Many is used in a it cannot be sure if it is representative ...
^^^^
Line 6, column 422, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fools'' or 'fool's'?
Suggestion: fools'; fool's
..., with a fallible method could not be a fools errand.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, hence, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, so, well, whereas, after all, in short, such as, as a matter of fact, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2059.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32041343669 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00541568163 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.470284237726 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 636.3 705.55239521 90% => 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
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 42.3419333459 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.5217391304 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8260869565 23.324526521 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.26086956522 5.70786347227 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.13724679354 0.218282227539 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0365347377757 0.0743258471296 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0740788752651 0.0701772020484 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0836626464438 0.128457276422 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0551221901342 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.28 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.39 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.