"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza.
In the past two years, however, there has only been a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the passage owner of the skateboard shop suggests that the skateboard users were not responsible for the litter and vandalism,so prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza should be lifted, it will help to restore central plaza to its former glory. However, the writer fails to boast his argument with cogent premises. There are number of questions which are needed to answer to support the claim.
Firstly, authors claims that litter and vandalism is still problematic. But that does not means that skateboard user were not responsible for the litter and vandalism, author should provide the evidence to support this claim. Author should answers these questions, total number of incidence two years back? Number of incidence occurred because of skateboard users two years back? Number of incidence in last two years? By providing answers to these question it would be helpful to conclude who is responsible for the litter and vandalism.
Also the author claims that there is only been a small increase in the number of visitors to Central plaza in last two years, after the ban on skateboarding in Central plaza, answering these questions will robust his claim. By what numbers actually the visitors increases in the plaza? what are the reasons of such small increase in number of visitors? By providing real reasons and providing evidence for the same will prove that skateboard users are not responsible for small turnover of the visitors.
Author also claims, Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. Author should provide evidence supporting the same? And how skateboarding will help to increase in the number of visitors?
Main question is how allowing the skateboarding in central plaza will help to restore its glory back? Author should answer this question, how lifting the ban on skateboarding will help to restore the central plaza glory, how it will help to increase the number of visitors, how the incidences of litter and vandalism caused by skateboard users will be controlled?
So in order to strength the argument author should answer to above questions.
Sentence: Firstly, authors claims that litter and vandalism is still problematic.
Description: The fragment authors claims that is rare
Suggestion: Possible agreement error: Replace claims with verb, base: uninflected present, imperative or infinitive
Sentence: Author should answers these questions, total number of incidence two years back?
Description: A modal auxillary is not usually followed by a verb, present tense, 3rd person singular
Suggestion: Refer to should and answers
flaws:
No. of Different Words: 132 200
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 349 350
No. of Characters: 1755 1500
No. of Different Words: 132 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.322 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.029 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.618 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 40 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.141 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.371 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.622 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.153 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5