1. 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 letter claims that a steady decline in the number of shoppers in Central Plaza is due to the dramatic increase in the popularity of skateboarding. However, the assumption is rife with fallacies and lacks sufficient evidence to show the relationship between the business in Central Plaza and skateboarding. Scrutinizing the inferences taken into consideration will aid to examine the given argument.
Firstly, the letter fails to consider enough aspects that might have led to a decrease in the number of shoppers in Central Plaza. The number of shoppers might have reduced due to the opening of new plaza close the Central Plaza. It is also necessary to consider whether the shops of Central Plaza are abreast enough to address the recent demands of their shoppers. The competitiveness of Central Plaza as compared to other market places may be a crucial factor determining its transactions.
Secondly, the letter asserts the rise in popularity of skateboarding but mentions no such increment for the number of skateboards in Central Plaza. Is the claim of the rise in popularity of skateboarding based on some survey data? Has the rise in popularity led to the increment of skateboarders, particularly in the Central Plaza? These inferences lack supporting evidence. Even if we consider the increment in the number of skateboards, it may be a cause for addition in flow of people in Central Plaza, which might, in turn, cause a rise in the number of shoppers.
Thirdly, the rise in the amount of litter and vandalism in the plaza area is wrongly associated with skateboarding. The letter lacks information about the waste management system and security provision of the Central Plaza. The dirtiness and damage of property are probably due to the lax management system of Central Plaza over the past two years.
Finally, the letter predicts that the business of Central Plaza would revive if the city prohibits skateboarding in that area. Rather, the prohibition in skateboarding might result in a decrease in the existing number of shoppers. It might detest to the young shoppers and their influence group. While the argument believes that banning skateboarding might result in serenity, many people who prefer the marketplace to be full of people and colorful activities might abandon shopping in the plaza. There is a strong likelihood of a further decrease in shoppers with the restriction of skateboarding, making the decision counterintuitive.
Therefore, the stated negative correlation between skateboarding and transactions in Central Plaza lacks important evidences. Without further information, the conclusion drawn is infelicitous, and doesn’t support the prediction made.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2220 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.211 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.048 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.364 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.61 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.578 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 55.5748502994 135% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2279.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36235294118 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15241786702 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461176470588 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 711.9 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9620150843 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.590909091 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3181818182 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.90909090909 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.401333043541 0.218282227539 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.127475738681 0.0743258471296 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0856206271032 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211686064346 0.128457276422 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.053994451626 0.0628817314937 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.78 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.