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.
In the editorial from the Central plaza owner, it is stated that the city should prohibit skateboarding for the proliferation of the profit in the business of the central plaza. The opponents have come to this conclusion based on the fact that increase the popularity of skateboarding is the primary reason for the decreasing of shoppers in the central plaza as well as due to this, the litter and vandalism of central plaza is increasing dramatically. However, before this recommendation can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
Firstly, is the popularity of skateboarding the only reason for the decreasing numbers of shoppers? Since the past 2 years, the popularity of skateboard is increasing in the city but are the number of shoppers of other plazas in the city also decreasing in the same way as in Central Plaza?. The author prematurely assumes that the popularity of skateboard is the only reason behind the reduction of the shopper's numbers. Maybe, the market is not stable or in the past 2 years other plazas would have opened and this is because some of the shoppers go for shopping there, or the deterioration of the plaza building in past two years might be reason for not attract more number of shoppers and this might be the only reason for skateboarders to choose the vandalised property for skateboarding. If one of the scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, In the argument, it is also stated that litter and vandalism have been increased throughout the Plaza. But the skateboarding is the reason behind this? The author vaguely assumes that litter and vandalisation of Plaza is due to the skateboard. However, this might not be a case. Perhaps the shopowners through the waste of their shops in the plaza or due to not have dustbins in the plaza, shoppers throw the eatables packets in the open plaza. Maybe the owner wants to construct the extra shops in the plaza and so what he vandalise the property and after the decreasing numbers of the shoppers, the construction work would be resumed. If the above is true, the argument does not hold water.
Finally, It is mentioned in the argument that after the prohibition of skateboarding the Business in the central plaza will return to its previously high deeds. But is it sure that it will certainly happen in the future? maybe the sales or recession in the market will hinder the flourish the business of the plaza, the only factor skateboarding is not sufficient to ascertain the business of the plaza. The author should do Research and analysis based on the past two years and then establish the prediction of the increase in the sales of the Plaza. If the reason is not the skateboard or might be sales, recession or saturation in the market then the above argument is not successfully telling us that skateboarding is the only reasons for decreasing the numbers of shoppers and the argument does not water.
In Conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to reliance of several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can answer the three questions above and offer more evidence, then it will be possible to evaluate to fully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation of the prohibition of skateboarding in the central Plaza.
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 562 350
No. of Characters: 2721 1500
No. of Different Words: 199 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.869 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.842 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.868 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 140 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.599 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shoppers'' or 'shopper's'?
Suggestion: shoppers'; shopper's
...only reason behind the reduction of the shoppers numbers. Maybe, the market is not stabl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 529, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...s would have opened and this is because some of the shoppers go for shopping there, or the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 535, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'vandalises'.
Suggestion: vandalises
...extra shops in the plaza and so what he vandalise the property and after the decreasing n...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 222, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Maybe
...it will certainly happen in the future? maybe the sales or recession in the market wi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, in conclusion, as well as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2786.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 562.0 441.139720559 127% => OK
Chars per words: 4.95729537367 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86893614481 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92412860675 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.364768683274 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 867.6 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 80.4961500029 57.8364921388 139% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.636363636 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5454545455 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.90909090909 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342602472492 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111217348788 0.0743258471296 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0993962792319 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.213049209826 0.128457276422 166% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0806645748635 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.83 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.