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.
In the letter to the editor, the author argues that the city should prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. The author comes to this conclusion based on the issues of the decrease in business of Central Plaza, which is attributed to the increased number of skateboard users in the plaza. However, there are three questions that, if not properly answered, dramatically weaken the argument and the predicted result.
First of all, the author is assuming that the decrease in shoppers and the increase of skateboarders in the plaza were idiosyncratic trends in recent two years. However, there is a possibility that the number of shoppers had been decreasing even several years before or the increase of skateboarders had increased more rapidly several years ago. For example, from 5 years before to 3 years before, the number of shoppers might decrease from 1,000 to 500. Then, although the number of shoppers decreased from 500 to 400 during the past two years, this could not be regarded as severe decline. In addition, it is possible that the number of skateboard users increased more largely in ten years ago than the past two years. In this case, the increase of skateboarders over the past two years could not become a reason for the decrease of shoppers. Therefore, when considering either of two scenarios, we need a clear answer about the past trend to properly evaluate the recommendation.
Secondly, even if it is true that the decrease of shoppers and the increase of skateboarders were the recent trends, the author still hastily assumes that the increase in skateboarding users caused the increase in the amount of litter and vandalism. However, this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps, the skateboard users are mature enough to consider about their neighbors and environments. It is possible that they have their own regulation such as cleaning up rule. Or there is a possibility that the reason for the increased litter and vandalism was other shoppers. If either case is true, the conclusion that the city should ban skateboarding in the plaza does not hold water. Thus, the author needs to suggest proper answer about who is in charge of the increase of litter and vandalism.
Thirdly, without considering the above questions, the author is relying on an unwarranted assumption that the benefit of prohibiting skateboarding exceeds the cost of it. However, this may not be the case. For example, we need to consider the possibility that the skateboard users could be potential customers of the plaza. What if the skateboarders contribute to the significant amount of revenue of the plaza? Or it is possible that some customers come to the plaza to watch the show from the boarders. Both direct and indirect effects of skateboarders could have the positive impact on the business of the plaza. In this case, restricting skateboarding in the plaza may cause the adverse effect on the number of shoppers. Hence, the author should propose reliable evidence that the recommendation will help the business of the plaza.
All in all, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to the reliance upon unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide answers to the questions suggested above, then it will be possible to properly evaluate the recommendation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 544 350
No. of Characters: 2686 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.829 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.938 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.83 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 192 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.148 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.781 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.704 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.111 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, for example, in addition, such as, first of all, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 88.0 55.5748502994 158% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2754.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 544.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0625 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82947280553 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89743204523 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 223.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.409926470588 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 851.4 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.2841650891 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.0 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1481481481 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07407407407 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.30365825318 0.218282227539 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0891493035521 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0776193744624 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166291906642 0.128457276422 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104640201377 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => 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: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.62 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.