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 author argues that in order to restore business in Central Plaza, there must be a prohibition of skateboarding activity in the area. However, the argument is not cogent enough to conclude that skateboarders are the only reason for why businesses are failing in Central Plaza. Therefore, questions must be answered in order to determine the validity of the argument. If the answers prove the argument otherwise, then the argument would be unsubstantiated and would be in need of correction.
Firstly, what happened in the last two years that led to a decrease of shoppers in Central Plaza? The author assumes that because of an increase in skateboarding activity, it must be the cause for a decrease in shoppers. Because correlation does not mean causation, skateboarding activity may not be the only reason a decrease in shoppers. Perhaps, within the two years, shoppers have found it easier and cheaper to shop online than to shop in-store. The vast development of technology and online shopping may contribute to a decrease of in-store shopping. Another confounding variable may be that shoppers are not satisfied with the prices in stores. Shoppers may have found other stores with better prices to shop. Furthermore, if there are other factors that contribute to the decrease in shoppers, then the prediction fails.
Secondly, are skateboarders proof of the dramatic increase in litter and vandalism? The author makes a biased assumption that skateboarders are likely to commit violent activity. However, not all skateboarders have a spiteful reputation. Therefore, anyone is capable of littering and causing vandalism. What the author must do is provide physical evidence, such as videos or witnesses, that catch skateboarders littering and vandalising Central Plaza. If the author does not provide the appropriate evidence, then it goes against the author’s argument.
Lastly, what are the previous high levels of business activity in Central Plaza? The author claims that business had a higher level in the past compared to the present situation, in which the blame is put on skateboarders for the decrease in levels. However, the author does not specify what exactly made the businesses successful in the past. The author must identify if businesses have changed their quality of services, which may have led to a decline in business. If the levels are the same, then perhaps skateboarders are to blame. However, if businesses have changed, then perhaps the changes have shewed customers away. Therefore, the author must identify the differences in business activities that may account for changes in customer attraction.
In conclusion, the questions to the argument must be answered in order to validate the author’s prediction. The author does not provide a significant amount of evidence to support the unstated assumptions that skateboarders are the only reason for why the number of shoppers decreased, why vandalism has increased, and why businesses are failing. If the author addresses the answers to the aforementioned questions, perhaps the argument is justified. If not, then the argument is completely flawed and the prediction is unwarranted.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 500 350
No. of Characters: 2605 1500
No. of Different Words: 191 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.729 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.21 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.914 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 211 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 169 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 126 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.241 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.94 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.793 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.299 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 604, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'shewn'.
Suggestion: shewn
... changed, then perhaps the changes have shewed customers away. Therefore, the author m...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2680.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.02970361587 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.418 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 843.3 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.6222084665 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.4137931034 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2413793103 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1724137931 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.181609246286 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0572859787013 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0705053030734 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106280450075 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512560964011 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.51 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.