The proposal made by the Central Plaza Shop owners to prohibit skateboarding without actually providing any solid evidence is a bizarre plan. Before implementing the proposal or even considering it , the Central Plaza must answer a few questions which will give a clearer picture of the situation.
Firstly, the shop owners in the Central Plaza might have increased their sales taxes which might be the reason in the rapid decline of shoppers. For example, goods which had a sales tax of 8 percent might be available at a higher price the people can't afford at. Another reason which could substantiate the waning of customers is the quality of goods. Probably, the Central Plaza has an old collection of stocks and is not on par with the current trends of the market.
Secondly, the presence of litter and vandalism might be the cause for the deterioration in the number of customers. The workers involved in the cleanliness department and the security guards aren't executing their duties. When the Plaza was pristine and free of vandalism, the shoppers felt safe and now, they are probably hesitant to step into the same place.
Thirdly, there is no direct relationship established in the argument regarding the increase in the number of skateboarders and decrease in the number of shoppers. A new skateboarding arena might have opened at the Plaza. The opening of this arena and the decline have no relation.
Furthermore, there might have been cases of recession due to which people have cut down on their expenses. This weakens the claim that there is a direct relationship between the waxing skateboarders and the waning customers. If the argument provided more evidence on the above mentioned facts, it would be void of loop holes. As of now, unless these questions have found answers, it is completely absurd to correlate the two.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not 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: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1500 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.87 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.689 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 106 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 78 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 56 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 4.763 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 198, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...ting the proposal or even considering it , the Central Plaza must answer a few que...
^^
Line 3, column 248, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
... available at a higher price the people cant afford at. Another reason which could s...
^^^^
Line 5, column 192, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: aren't
...ness department and the security guards arent executing their duties. When the Plaza ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, furthermore, if, regarding, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1542.0 2260.96107784 68% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.02280130293 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75478546809 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.560260586319 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 477.9 705.55239521 68% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 29.3105676335 57.8364921388 51% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 96.375 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1875 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.4375 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.217704316224 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0640315077611 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0570849032325 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1127795268 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0378160620395 0.0628817314937 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.