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 of the argument has failed to convince us that the decrease in the number of shoppers in central plaza is due to the skateboard users in the plaza. The argument, as it stands, is based on questionable assumption and a faulty line of reasoning, a fact which renders it over-simplistic and unconvincing.
First, the author of the argument falsely concludes that the increase rate of skateboard users is the cause of the decrease in the number shoppers. To elucidate on, the author assumes that there is no other factor concerning the decrease in the number of shoppers. Therefore, we can no accept the only cause. What if the economics has changed in the past two years and the people are less willing to buy products because of their pecuniary condition? What if the quality of products, sold in the plaza, are diminishing and the price is still the same? Furthermore, we may even think about the condition where people choose to shop elsewhere, due to the inflated prices in the Plaza. Not only is it acceptable to think so, but is it mandatory to come up with other solutions and factors, unstated by the author. Hence, the author draws a nebulous assumption based on little evidence. In other words, the author should have elucidated major points, mentioned above.
Second, the arguer makes a very bold assumption about the dramatic increase in litter and vandalism. To scrutinize further, the author fails to provide justification for the mentioned issue. Therefore, too many other aspects are unstated in the argument. To begin with, the security crew of the Plaza might have changed and the people of the crew are not working properly. What if the whole crime rate had had went up in the last two years? What if the vandalism and the litter are rooted in the same people’s monetary welfare? More than that, we could even think about the political situation in the region which can uphold such a behavior. As a result, enumerated evidence, as mentioned, would dispel any ambiguity and strengthen the argument.
Finally, the author makes use of vague terms to justify his/her position. To elaborate on, the author mentioned terms such as “decrease in the number of shoppers” or “dramatic increase”. Simply put, these terms and phrases need scrutiny. We do not know the extent to which the number of shoppers decreased. The decrease could be defined even as one thousand percent decrease. Thus, the author needs more justification to support his/her argument. If the terms and phrases above had been defined in detail, it would have been more logical to accept such a statement.
To conclude, based on substantial assumption and poor evidence, the arguer’s reasoning does not provide concrete support for his/her conclusion. If the argument had concluded the ideas discussed, it would have been more thorough and convincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 403, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: had
... properly. What if the whole crime rate had had went up in the last two years? What if ...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'such as', 'as a result', 'in other words', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.225225225225 0.25644967241 88% => OK
Verbs: 0.156756756757 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0810810810811 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0414414414414 0.0520304965353 80% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0216216216216 0.0272364105082 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.10990990991 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0468468468468 0.0416121511921 113% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.84614790027 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0306306306306 0.026700313972 115% => OK
Particles: 0.0018018018018 0.001811407834 99% => OK
Determiners: 0.12972972973 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.018018018018 0.0255425247493 71% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0144144144144 0.0127820249294 113% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2871.0 2731.13054187 105% => OK
No of words: 476.0 446.07635468 107% => OK
Chars per words: 6.03151260504 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67091256922 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.365546218487 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.271008403361 0.287650121315 94% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.205882352941 0.208842608468 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.149159663866 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84614790027 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 207.018472906 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.483193277311 0.469332199767 103% => OK
Word variations: 55.2877150916 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 28.0 20.039408867 140% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.2022227129 73% => OK
Sentence length SD: 32.4288860904 57.7814097925 56% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.535714286 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.0 23.2022227129 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.607142857143 0.724660767414 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 44.1008403361 51.9672348444 85% => OK
Elegance: 1.73770491803 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539843354172 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0828280203617 0.135418324435 61% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0882524816648 0.0829849096947 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.536431530797 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.146881352395 0.147661913831 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.214450259514 0.193483328276 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123050678465 0.0970749176394 127% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.574983092612 0.42659136922 135% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.151540619067 0.0774707102158 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.383848794269 0.312017818177 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.111315638194 0.0698173142475 159% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.82512315271 187% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.