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 concludes here that the decrease in the number of shoppers in Central Plaza is due to the increase in the popularity of skateboarding and thus, prohibition of skateboarding will fuel the popularity of Central Plaza again. Stated in this way, the recommendation fails to acknowledge diverse pivotal aspects of the decrease in popularity of Central Plaza, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. It reveals several instances of poor reasoning and weak extrapolation. It tries to persuade the reader by manipulating facts and providing weak pieces of evidence. In support of the stated recommendation, the author reasons that decrease the business at Central Plaza is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. The author generalizes this assumption in a broader view with inattention towards other varying factors. Nevertheless, careful scrutiny of the pieces of evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation. Hence the recommendation can be considered uncorroborated and incomplete.
First of all, the recommendation is backboned by effortlessly assuming that the decrease in the businesses at the plaza is due to an increase in the number of skateboard users in the plaza. This is solely a belief without much solid argument. For example, the author must know the main reason for the people using skateboards in the plaza. It is possible that people use skateboards to save their time to avoid walking between shops on the two ends of the plaza. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated the main reason for people to use a skateboard.
The author also reasons that there is a dramatic increase in the amount of litter generated throughout the plaza. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not provide any correlation between skateboard users and a decrease in the businesses. To illustrate further, the author must pay attention to the sources generating litter. It might be possible that bins and litterbox have been moved far away from where they should be so people started throwing waste on the floors. It is also possible that there is no prim cleaning done after the working hours of the mall by the cleaning department resulting in aggregation of waste over a period of time. The generation of litter might be the main reason for avoiding people to come to plaza due to the foul smell they emit. Consequently, a decrease in businesses at the plaza.
Finally, the author extrapolates that prohibition of skateboarding at plaza would result in gains at businesses. However, careful examination of the prediction reveals that it provides a little credible support for the recommendation. The author must ask the businesses about the quality of service and products they sell. It is possible that services provided by the businesses itself have degraded as compared to two years back and as a result, leading to decrease in customers.
In conclusion, the author's recommendation is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide concrete pieces of evidence, perhaps by a detailed analysis of the decrease in the business at the plaza.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
the introduction is too long.
----------------------
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2614 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.017 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.98 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 192 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.038 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.993 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.474 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.054 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 953, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors recommendation. Hence the recommendatio...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 977, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...support for the authors recommendation. Hence the recommendation can be considered un...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...een shops on the two ends of the plaza. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 647, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...esulting in aggregation of waste over a period of time. The generation of litter might be the ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
...se in customers. In conclusion, the authors recommendation is unpersuasive as it st...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 218, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... decrease in the business at the plaza.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, nevertheless, so, thus, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 55.5748502994 153% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2669.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12284069098 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04841853059 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 225.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.431861804223 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 848.7 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 43.1588506628 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.653846154 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0384615385 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.11538461538 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234580979038 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680534958618 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0948138170151 0.0701772020484 135% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1288499103 0.128457276422 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0824632238124 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.