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.
Comprehensive Analysis of businesses to illuminate multiple factors that influence the overall popularity and profitability of the business has become a powerful approach to increase general business throughput. On one hand, taking too many factors into consideration while analyzing any business will lead to extremely obscure and complex derivations which may not provide any clear indices about the business itself. On the other hand, taking very few factors in view during analysis will lead to faulty conclusions. In the preceding statement, the author claims that skateboarding is the main cause of declining business of the store owners in Central Plaza. Though this claim may be based on some analysis, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions. Based solely on the evidence provided by the author, we cannot accept this argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises. The author states that store owners believe that the debacle surrounding their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the Plaza. The author makes no effort of verifying this claim in a judicious way. We simply cannot believe the hunches of the businessmen without any supporting evidence. Also, the author is trying to pinpoint a reason for low business output by analyzing external factors. However, it is quite possible that the stores in the Plaza have intrinsic shortcomings which led to the decline in their popularity. The author has not provided any evidence of verifying the intrinsic factors that influence the popularity of the stores. The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly, the dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism is attributed to skateboard users. It is highly likely that several factors may have added up to create such a situation. For example, lack of security and surveillance, or shortage of janitors. Second, the author assumes that the fall in popularity of stores is due to a single reason i.e. skateboard users. However, in any practical business situation, the cause of any issue is seldom singular. Hence, the assumption that banning skateboards will resolve the problem of falling popularity of the stores in the Plaza is baseless. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explication of the links between skateboard users and impact on business.
While there are several flaws in the key premises and assumptions made by the author, it is not to say that the entire argument is completely baseless. The author may have made an astute observation by linking popularity of businesses with skateboard users. However, the observations need bolstering evidence that can prove his conclusions completely. By providing evidence of instances where skateboarding has led to vandalism and eventual decline in business would strengthen the argument immensely.
In sum, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. If the author truly hopes to change his readers' minds on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 227, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...umber of skateboard users in the Plaza. The author makes no effort of verifying thi...
^^^
Line 3, column 278, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a judicious way" with adverb for "judicious"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...makes no effort of verifying this claim in a judicious way. We simply cannot believe the hunches o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 756, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'premise'.
Suggestion: premise
...e popularity of the stores. The authors premises, the basis for his argument, lack any l...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'for example', 'in addition', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.27018121911 0.25644967241 105% => OK
Verbs: 0.151565074135 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0840197693575 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0444810543657 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0329489291598 0.0272364105082 121% => OK
Prepositions: 0.121911037891 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0543657331137 0.0416121511921 131% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.94370542903 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0247116968699 0.026700313972 93% => OK
Particles: 0.00164744645799 0.001811407834 91% => OK
Determiners: 0.118616144975 0.113004496875 105% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0214168039539 0.0255425247493 84% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0131795716639 0.0127820249294 103% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3559.0 2731.13054187 130% => OK
No of words: 550.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.47090909091 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84273464058 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.463636363636 0.378187486979 123% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.350909090909 0.287650121315 122% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.26 0.208842608468 124% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.167272727273 0.135150697306 124% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94370542903 2.79052419416 105% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 207.018472906 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465454545455 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 55.1582989668 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 18.3333333333 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.4832790341 57.7814097925 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.633333333 141.986410481 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3333333333 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 53.4242424242 51.9672348444 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.94964028777 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.456372667425 0.441005458295 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0929182094212 0.135418324435 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0784636998047 0.0829849096947 95% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.516694139843 0.58762219726 88% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.145391683979 0.147661913831 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.181925975219 0.193483328276 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116143514828 0.0970749176394 120% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.541582454629 0.42659136922 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.130313480065 0.0774707102158 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.32194112101 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100023015772 0.0698173142475 143% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 26.0 14.657635468 177% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.