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 letter adduces that by prohibiting skatebording in Central Plaza, business in the area are likely to reach its previous popularity. The author suggests that the decrease in business are due to the augment in the number of skateboard users around the place, but he fails to provide substantial arguments to buttress such conclusion.
First of all, a raise in the number of skateboard users could have, conversely, increased the incomes of the stores. Once more they started to attend the area, it would be more likely that, at least some of them, could spend money in the stores. The author treat the skateboard users as a threat to the frequent clientel of the place, but the letter lacks evidence to support that matter.
The author follows by claiming that there has been a sharp increase in the amount of litter and vandalism in the plaza. He gives no supporting evidence, however, to relate this fact to the presence of the skateboarders. Litter and vandalism may have whet because of a negligence in the administration of the area. If it is a public place, the government may be facing some shortcomings in security and economical areas. If it is under a private management, the stores may be investing little to clean the area, since they are going through hard times. Furthermore, litter and vandalism could have been the reason to frighten the customers, not the skateboarders.
Also there is no comment whether there was a change in the price policies of the stores. If they increased their margin of profit by elevating the prizes of the products, this could have put away some customers. Because less people were attending the area, skateboarders then could have seen an opportunity to use the place to skating. Again, the increase in the number of skateboarders would not be the reason to the decrement in the number of customers, but the consequence of it. So prohibiting them to attend the area would not solve the problem at all.
To sum, the arguments used in the letter are full of gaps. They can not corroborate that reducing the number of skateboard users in the area is going to solve the dispersal of clientele in the plaza. More evidence regarding the maintenance of store’s policies and government programs in the area should be provided to strengthen the author’s claims.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- better to say: maybe other reasons caused the business decreasing.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- this could be the argument 1.
---------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
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
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 393 350
No. of Characters: 1863 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.452 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.74 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.708 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.684 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.91 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 198, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...hat the decrease in business are due to the augment in the number of skateboard users aroun...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 258, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'treats'.
Suggestion: treats
...d spend money in the stores. The author treat the skateboard users as a threat to the...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 251, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'whetted'.
Suggestion: whetted
...boarders. Litter and vandalism may have whet because of a negligence in the administ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...he customers, not the skateboarders. Also there is no comment whether there was a...
^^^^
Line 7, column 221, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...d have put away some customers. Because less people were attending the area, skatebo...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, conversely, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, at least, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1931.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.91348600509 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82893068788 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468193384224 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 603.0 705.55239521 85% => 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: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.9825256799 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 101.631578947 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6842105263 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.47368421053 5.70786347227 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153408298873 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0480681788996 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511935825385 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0926531016436 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0388853316659 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.