The business district of downtown Laughton is thriving during the weekdays but is virtually uninhabited during the weekends. As a result, many of the shops and restaurants close during this time, though the proprietors must still pay rent. Since many such businesses have struggled over the last year, the mayor of Laughton has proposed that a nearby, abandoned 20-acre plot of land that houses a few dilapidated warehouses be converted into a park. Once completed, the park will serve as a weekend attraction for many families living in Laughton. As a results, many will frequent the restaurants and shops, thereby reinvigorating these struggling businesses.
The business plan proposed to increase weekend business by the mayor of Laughton is not a realistic one. Based on facts that are vague, at best, it is riddled with logical fallacies and fails to identify the root cause of failing business on weekends, which leads to an inchoate cogent to try to boost business.
The author uses vocabulary used as “thriving” and “virtually uninhabited” in order to characterise the business district. Though these words are contrasting and does give the reader a sense of the business pattern, it is vague and uninformative and the mayor of the district cannot make a sensible decision based on this feedback. A better approach would be to quantify this using statistics of people visiting the district, the number of sales that occur and the profit or losses incurred on weekdays versus on weekends. This would give more sound evidence and would define the problem Laughton encounters in clear cut fashion.
Moving on from identifying the problem encountered by the business district of Laughton, there are two main flaws with the argument that converting the dilapidated warehouses into a park would attract and improve business in the area. The first is that, opening a park in the area may not attract people to come in the first place, let alone boost business in the area. This would be true for a number of reasons. There could be more parks in Laughton already. This would mean that frequent park goers may be unwilling to switch parks to a newer park. Depending on what the warehouses used to work with, people may be reluctant to come to the park. For example, if the warehouses used to dispose of chemical waste in the region, then people would be unlikely to frequent the newly open park for safety reason, and may be even less so with their families, as the passage implies that the park is aimed at families.
Secondly, a visit to the park does not necessarily mean that people would be more inclined to buy or frequent the shops in Laughton. For example, if a person goes out for a jog in the morning at the park, they would be unlikely to visit a restaurant straight after and so there is no change to business, even though the area is being visited. There is no logical reason to say that the frequency with which people use the park would directly be translated into better business and profits. There may be a number of reasons why the area is “virtually uninhabited” during weekends. For example, perhaps Laughton families travel on weekends a lot and so are not in the neighbourhood. Perhalps families prefer to spend time at home on weekends rather than to go out and therefore the business district in empty.
Another reason why business might be not as good as on weekdays if that perhaps the businesses in the area are not family orientated and then even opening a park would not boost business. For example, if the area has a lot of pubs and bars or if it is an office area, it would explain why it is “thriving” during the week due to office workers getting lunch or drinks after work, as opposed to weekends when employees spend time away from the office with their family.
All in all, more evidence needs to be collected on the type of business in the area and business needs to be quantified, before the mayor decides whether or not opening a park near the area would affect business in Laughton.
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: 594 350
No. of Characters: 2710 1500
No. of Different Words: 238 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.937 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.562 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.431 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.333 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.333 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.333 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...be quantified, before the mayor decides whether or not opening a park near the area would affe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for example, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 89.0 55.5748502994 160% => OK
Nominalization: 3.0 16.3942115768 18% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2817.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 594.0 441.139720559 135% => OK
Chars per words: 4.74242424242 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.93681225224 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77435612136 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.424242424242 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 881.1 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 66.4041750405 57.8364921388 115% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.045454545 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.90909090909 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.126889909422 0.218282227539 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0475245482444 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.029792549463 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.078817431271 0.128457276422 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.027010735826 0.0628817314937 43% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 52.53 48.3550499002 109% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.6 12.197005988 103% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.51 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.