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.
It might be logical at first glance to agree with the writer that recommending decreasing skateboarding in Central Plaza could bring about an increase in sales again. However, the author of this letter relies on what might be less credible evidence or even unproven assumptions to support his recommendation, which I will distinguish below.
First, the author readily assumes that it is only because of the increase in the number of people who use skateboards around Central Plaza that the yield drops dramatically. This is just an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, what if the economic situation and inflation rates have changed over the years and lead to a decrease in public power shopping that actually yields the current reduced rate of shopping from the Plaza? Also, it is possible that sellers in the Plaza did not get along with the latest changes in fashion or tastes globally, so your population may not shop for some old-fashioned stuff in the Plaza. In other words, it may also be a matter of changes in culture and desires. Therefore, the argument would have been very convincing if it had explicitly stated how external factors influenced the circumstance to what extent.
Secondly, the letter depends on a weak correlation. The mere fact that an ever-increasing skateboard user is near the plaza hardly suffices to show that there has been a sharp increase in litter abundance and vandalism across the Plaza. To illustrate further, things have changed over the years and perhaps environmental or climate change may have occurred so that it caused these current dirty surroundings of the plaza. Moreover, maybe the business owners and whoever is in charge of the plaza keep their environment and make it dirty by not observe grooming. If the argument had provided evidence that everything was in its best condition at the plaza due to its determination to be clean, then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, one more problem with the argument is the final recommendation. On the basis of evidence, the author infers that skateboarding should be under strict control by city authorities in order to have an increase in shopping from the plaza again. Even assuming that it may be beneficial to prohibit skateboarding along the plaza, it cannot convince me that this is the only way to make conditions better again. So, it may be effective if the controlling process is accompanied by some other actions. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more than wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by means of a detailed analysis of the various external factors such as; environmental, economic, and cultural ups and downs in society. Without these changes, the argument is implausible and the reasoning is faulty.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 497 350
No. of Characters: 2471 1500
No. of Different Words: 265 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.722 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.972 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.781 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.667 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.27 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.503 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...stantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2527.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 497.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08450704225 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86032639257 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.533199195171 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 791.1 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6256275357 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.333333333 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6666666667 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.14285714286 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.188558089032 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528703377274 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0609888146538 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102012476499 0.128457276422 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0595263279998 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.