In the letter, the Central Plaza store owner stated the decrease in the number of shoppers in the Plaza and an increase in the popularity of skateboarding in the area, thus making a connection between the two. Likewise, the store owner also implied a link between the increasing littering and vandalism and skateboarding. Based on the claims above, the store owner suggested ban skateboarding in the Plaza, assuming the business will reach its previous height again after the prohibition. Although out of good intention to restore the glory of the Central Plaza, the letter did not make a cogent case, being unconvincing in several aspects.
First, the author implied a connection between the drop of number of shoppers in the Plaza and the rise of skateboarding, holding the assumption that skateboarding is the direct cause to the decline of buyers. To strengthen the argument, questions remain to be answered to rule out other possibilities leading to such decline in business. Is it possible that the poor service at the Central Plaza expels potential customers? Is it possible that the opening of another larger and better shopping center attract most of the old shoppers? Or is it possible that poor economic environment prevents people from shopping as often as before? Unless such information is provided, the evidence stated in the letter is not solid enough to support the argument.
Likewise, the author also pointed out the fact that the amount of litter and vandalism had increased in the plaza, making an unstated assumption that skateboarding is the direct reason for littering and vandalism. To bolster the argument, more information is required to exclude other possibilities that may result in such increase. It needs to be answered whether there is a decline in the number of police officers or security personnel patrolling the area, resulting in a lack of supervision and protection. It also needs to be answered whether individuals other than the skateboarders exist in the area and are possibly responsible for the littering or vandalism, for example, a group of homeless people living nearby and often wander the plaza. Without assertions that no other cause is responsible for littering and vandalism, the author did not make a strong argument.
Finally, the author recommended prohibition of skateboarding in the Central Plaza, holding the belief that such prohibition can restore the former glory of the Central Plaza. Assuming the skateboarding is actually the direct cause of the decline in customers, to strengthen the argument, the author needed to answer whether the former customers are still willing to come back to Central Plaza after the prohibition. Perhaps the shoppers have been accustomed to shop at another shopping center. Or maybe they have get used to shopping online. Or they simply do not want to drive all the way to the Central Plaza to shop anymore. Thus in order to make a solid argument, more evidence are needed to assure that customers are willing to come back if the skateboarding issue has been resolved.
In conclusion, the letter did not make a solid argument, and in order to strengthen its claims and the final conclusion, the author needs to provide evidences whether skateboarding is the direct and only cause to the decline of buyers, as well as littering and vandalism. the author needs to provide information whether the former customers are still willing to come back to Central Plaza after the prohibition.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 568 350
No. of Characters: 2851 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.882 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.019 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.792 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 219 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.594 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.517 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 448, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[4]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'accustomed to shopping'.
Suggestion: accustomed to shopping
...ibition. Perhaps the shoppers have been accustomed to shop at another shopping center. Or maybe th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 514, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'got', 'gotten'.
Suggestion: got; gotten
...her shopping center. Or maybe they have get used to shopping online. Or they simply...
^^^
Line 7, column 629, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...y to the Central Plaza to shop anymore. Thus in order to make a solid argument, more...
^^^^
Line 9, column 273, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: The
...rs, as well as littering and vandalism. the author needs to provide information whe...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, if, likewise, may, so, still, then, thus, well, for example, in conclusion, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2919.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 568.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13908450704 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88187981987 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88220894835 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.389084507042 0.468620217663 83% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 915.3 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.773660445 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.913043478 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6956521739 23.324526521 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13043478261 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274415427185 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0891026626959 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0993875293032 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173276481964 0.128457276422 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10890504984 0.0628817314937 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.0 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.