The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza. "Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author's recommendation that, in order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, the city should allow skateboarding in the plaza again is flawed. This is because certain questions must be answered before to evaluate such recommendation as a sound argument. In what follows, I will explain my points.
First, the author is assuming that nothing but allow skateboarding in Central Plaza again will restate the glory of the place. But this is a strong conclusion based on a weak evidence. He need to know what others features can improve the image of Central Plaza. Maybe, for instance, the infrastructure is in bad conditions, making that the visitors prefer go to others places to visit.
Second, the author is comparing the Central Plaza situation against Monroe Park. He says that in the latter there is not a relation between vandalism and skateboarding. But, we do not know if there are enough similarities between both parks to confirm that vandalism can be avoided allowing skateboarding. Moreover, the prohibition of skateboarding could not stop vandalism and litter. What if the security if better in Monroe Park than in Central Plaza? Perhaps, the police in Monroe Park is making an excellent job there fighting criminals, and central Plaza lacks of good security forces.
Third, he is not considering the possibility that the criminals of Central Plaza are the skateboarders. This could have happened if the prohibition control had not been applied properly. For instance, the skateboarders can keep going to the Central Plaza in spite of the police efforts. The author should investigate how well the prohibition has been implemented by the local authorities because he could make the problem worst if his recommendation is implemented.
To conclude, the author's recommendation could be strengthened if the author investigate which other issues are keeping the Central Plaza visitors away of the place. Furthermore, the recommendation could also strengthened if he understand better the relation between Central Plaza and Monroe Park to know if the similarities are enough. However, as it stands, the argumentation is flawed for the reasons indicated.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Out of topic.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 346 350
No. of Characters: 1784 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.313 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.156 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.008 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 64 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.3 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.542 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.318 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.527 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors recommendation that, in order to restor...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: IF_IS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...dalism and litter. What if the security if better in Monroe Park than in Central P...
^^
Line 7, column 415, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'problem the worst'.
Suggestion: problem the worst
...l authorities because he could make the problem worst if his recommendation is implemented. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...on is implemented. To conclude, the authors recommendation could be strengthened if...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 209, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'strengthen'
Suggestion: strengthen
...thermore, the recommendation could also strengthened if he understand better the relation be...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 228, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'he' must be used with a third-person verb: 'understands'.
Suggestion: understands
...mendation could also strengthened if he understand better the relation between Central Pla...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, third, well, for instance, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1838.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 346.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31213872832 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09137790114 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 563.4 705.55239521 80% => 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: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.3446215264 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.3 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.75 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.232802190336 0.218282227539 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0810854163244 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0712253628938 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144925299066 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0164837263363 0.0628817314937 26% => 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: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.22 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => 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.