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 that the number of shoppers in central plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. This argument distorts the view of the situation by manipulating facts and by providing weak evidences. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author notes that many central plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. This is merely an assumption made without a solid ground. How can it be concluded that the skateboarders make no purchase of products in the central plaza? The skateboarders might actually buy something and a non skateboarder might go home empty handed just by doing any window shopping. The argument would have been more convincing if there is an evidence presented regarding information about the purchases of all the customers.
Second, the owners also pointed out that, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any correlation between increase in the skateboarders and littering in the central plaza. Any person who lacks discipline might enter into the plaza and that person need not be a skateboarder. The one who is actually littering might have been a non skateboarder. If the argument had provided evidence that skateboarders are causing all the trouble in the plaza then it would have been lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, there is no guarantee that even after the skateboarders are prohibited from the central plaza there will be an increase in the business. However, there can be an rise in the sales by proper marketing, selling quality based products and also by attracting crowd by alluring offers and deals. Doing these things, might increase the business despite the number of the skateboarders in the plaza.
In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further the author should have provided more concrete evidences by giving evidences related to the littering and the link between the decrease in sales and number of skateboarders in the plaza.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 379 350
No. of Characters: 1932 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.412 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.098 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.887 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.045 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.54 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 365, 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 conclusion. Hence, the argument can be ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 471, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ing might have been a non skateboarder. If the argument had provided evidence that...
^^
Line 7, column 169, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
... in the business. However, there can be an rise in the sales by proper marketing, ...
^^
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
...ers in the plaza. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, hence, however, if, regarding, second, so, then, while, in conclusion, 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: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1977.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 379.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21635883905 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95726224577 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477572559367 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 618.3 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.0689576174 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.052631579 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9473684211 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.05263157895 5.70786347227 106% => 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 : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.327113096429 0.218282227539 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.108612210025 0.0743258471296 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136617260918 0.0701772020484 195% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1885859397 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0565461149454 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.2 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.