The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only 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.
The argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, it is based on unwarranted assumption that removing the prohibition on the skateboarders in Central Plaza, would restore the plaza former glory. Indeed, there are several unstated assumptions which if do not hold true argument will totally fall apart. The reasons provided by author are dangling. The author fails to provide the correct reasons behind the real problem.
The argument fails to provide any justification that in order to restore the Central Plaza glory, city should lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza. The reasons for poor customers in Central Plaza could different. For one, the goods that plaza is selling could be outdated, old-fashioned and that too at high prices. The goods, items are not be liked by customers because of their poor quality. Whereas the other malls in the same locality are providing new stuff with low prices and better quality. Even if the prices are high, quality is must. Without maintaining quality, people will not buy the stuff even at low prices. Also, the argument claims that litter is still the same. If this the case, than how will the customer be attracted. People would like to go to beautiful places than shabby and ugly. The argument had been more strong had it provided information regarding the material the Central Plaza is selling and need to work on cleaning its surrounding. Only than could it restore its former glory.
The argument leaves many other unanswered questions, it recommend to nullify the prohibition on the skateboarders in the plaza, to help restore the plaza glory. But this reason is unrealistic, the argument is trusting the skateboarders without any reasons. Even if skateboarders start to come, it doesn't mean that plaza glory is maintained. The main requirement is enhancing the current facilities in the plaza. Working upon the loose ends and fixing them.
Finally, the argument claims without any warrant that skateboarding is permitted in the Monroe Park, and there is no litter, vandalism in that place. However, same may not hold true for the Central Plaza. For one, Monroe is a park, they might be having proper facilities like dust-bins and facility workers to keep check on the litter and also they might have placed the cameras to check for vandalism. Also, the age group of the skateboarders matters a lot. Maybe more mature crowd is visiting the park. The argument had been strong had it taken into consideration the various factors differentiating park and plaza.
Because the argument makes many unwarranted assumption it fails to provide any convincing case that allowing skateboarders will restore the Central Plaza former glory. Instead the Plaza should work on its short-comings into order to attract customers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 255, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
... are several unstated assumptions which if do not hold true argument will totally ...
^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ect reasons behind the real problem. The argument fails to provide any justifica...
^^^
Line 3, column 163, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...hibition on skateboarding in the plaza. The reasons for poor customers in Central P...
^^^
Line 3, column 714, Rule ID: COMMA_THAN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'then'?
Suggestion: then
...er is still the same. If this the case, than how will the customer be attracted. Peo...
^^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'recommends'?
Suggestion: recommends
...ves many other unanswered questions, it recommend to nullify the prohibition on the skat...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommend nullifying'.
Suggestion: recommend nullifying
...ves many other unanswered questions, it recommend to nullify the prohibition on the skateboarders in...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 69, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er unanswered questions, it recommend to nullify the prohibition on the skateboar...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Because” 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.
...tors differentiating park and plaza. Because the argument makes many unwarranted ass...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 169, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Instead,
...restore the Central Plaza former glory. Instead the Plaza should work on its short-comi...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'whereas', 'as to']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.241176470588 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.186274509804 0.15541462614 120% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0764705882353 0.0836205057962 91% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0470588235294 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0294117647059 0.0272364105082 108% => OK
Prepositions: 0.105882352941 0.125424944231 84% => OK
Participles: 0.0588235294118 0.0416121511921 141% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75027851396 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0254901960784 0.026700313972 95% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.117647058824 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0313725490196 0.0255425247493 123% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00392156862745 0.0127820249294 31% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2799.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 454.0 446.07635468 102% => OK
Chars per words: 6.16519823789 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.374449339207 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.275330396476 0.287650121315 96% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.178414096916 0.208842608468 85% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.11013215859 0.135150697306 81% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75027851396 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469162995595 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 52.4589886181 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 15.1333333333 23.2022227129 65% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9035509608 57.7814097925 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.3 141.986410481 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.1333333333 23.2022227129 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.366666666667 0.724660767414 51% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 3.58251231527 251% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 42.6663729809 51.9672348444 82% => OK
Elegance: 1.5447761194 1.8405768891 84% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.489894522846 0.441005458295 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109247171861 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0757970182544 0.0829849096947 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.486463108726 0.58762219726 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146746081992 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.189857652654 0.193483328276 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103603246752 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.49480109068 0.42659136922 116% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.122626982257 0.0774707102158 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.366842918369 0.312017818177 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0579429220076 0.0698173142475 83% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.33743842365 192% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 6.46551724138 217% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 25.0 14.657635468 171% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 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 to cover all aspects.