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 prompt recommends the prohibition of skateboard users (SU) since it would lead to rise in business once again. It does so on the basis of relationship between increase in SU and decrease in business. However, the prompt does not make a cogent case since it is rife with holes and cracks. Before the recommendation is properly evaluated, following questions must be answered.
First of all, does the previous high levels start to fall in last 2 years only? In other words, the question must be answered for the period till which high levels were in existence and from when it starts to decrease since it can provide comprehensive picture about the trend. For instance, it may happen that those previous levels were existed till 10 years ago and after that the businesses were falling continuously but owners started to blame for the last two years because the rate of decline was unacceptable. Further, the question must also be answered for previous 2 years decline since it may happen that the decline in last 2 years was temporary and due to some unavoidable circumstances such as sudden change in stock keeping requirements by the government but situation may improve in coming years. If both the instances were true, then the recommendation does not hold the water.
Secondly, does the increase in SU cause decrease in business? In other words, the question must be answered for a correlation between increase in SU and corresponding decrease in business since it may be specious. For instance it may happen that people who come to plaza for shopping may like to use skates which led to increase in SU lately but decrease in business may be due to rise in prices abruptly. Further, it may also happen that Plaza may have opened up a skate recreation facility for the shoppers to buck the fall in business to which shoppers responded enthusiastically but resolute not to shop because of higher prices. If both the hypothesis hold the merit, then the recommendation is significantly weakened.
Thirdly, do SU cause litter and vandalism? Or do shoppers feel solicitous negatively towards SU? In other words, the questions must be answered for providing a validation and evidence to show that these SU are responsible for littering and rising vandalism and shoppers in the Plaza are reluctant to shop because of presence of SU in Plaza since the answers to these may provide the cause for decrease in business. For instance it may happen that SU are coming to Plaza just to enjoy skates and they may have propriety therefore, not responsible for littering and vandalism but the shoppers, though they are decreasing but habitual to littering and prone to vandalism due to fraud or deceiving practices pursued by businesses. Further, the question must be answered for the concern of people towards SU since it may happen that shoppers are nonchalant towards SU but paying attention to the sudden and steep rise in prices and therefore, reluctant to shop. Unless the recommendation is fully representative, it cannot be used to effectively support the argument.
In conclusion, the recommendation as it stands now, is considerably flawed since it relies heavily on several unwarranted assumptions. If the owner offers a more answers to above questions and more evidence perhaps in the form of products available in the store, their price pattern and competition during the last 10 years, then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the recommendation.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not exactly. for this:
Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically.
we called it 'facts' which are not needed to argue.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 578 350
No. of Characters: 2835 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.903 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.905 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.853 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.273 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.118 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.818 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.33 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, for instance, in conclusion, such as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 26.0 11.1786427146 233% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2897.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 578.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01211072664 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90322654589 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92252635694 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425605536332 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 912.6 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 87.5013223041 57.8364921388 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.681818182 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2727272727 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.40909090909 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0907118457715 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310223544126 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0271600241549 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0557946159253 0.128457276422 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0193928664699 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => 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.