"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."
This editorial recommends the prohibition of stakeboarding in central plaza in order to return the business in central plaza to its previous high levels. In order to substantiate his claims author has expressed that the number of shopper in the central plaza have been steadily decreasing over the past two years and on the other hand there is drastic increase in the stakeborading popularity in that area. So author makes several dubious assumptions and blames the stakeboarder’s as the reason for fall in the business. This argument is logically flawed in several critical aspects.
To begin with the author unfairly assumes that the number of shoppers in central plaza has been steadily decreasing due to the increase in the skateboarding popularity. The fails to consider other probable reasons for the decrease in the shoppers in the central plaza like there might be a rise in the number of shopping destinations in the city and the shoppers started preferring the new shopping places than the central plaza. So the author should provide more substantial evidence such as a through survey or poll of the consumers avoiding the central plaza because of the stakeboardering activity.
Secondly, The author claims that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of vandalism and litter throughout the plaza and unreasonably links this litter and vandalism to the stakeboaders. The visitor of central plaza might very well be possible reason for littering around and poor maintenance of hygiene and cleanliness. On there hand people involving in the skateboarding are less likely to be involved in the vandalism, city criminal gangs are much more likely to be involved in vandalisms might be a possible reason for vandalism. These active presence of these gangs might be one of the possible for drop in the general shopper in the central plaza.
Finally author makes his flawed assumptions that prohibition of the skate holders shall help in the returning the business to its previous high levels. These stakesboaders might be the very reason that the shoppers are visiting the central plaza to enjoy their performances and banning them may further decrease the nymber of shoppers. On the other hand these skateboaders may provide a great deal of business in the central plaza and prohibiting them can further weaken the business.
In conclusion the argument is based on several flawed unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that prohibiting the stakeboarding in the central will lead to return of business to its previous highs. For the above mentioned reasons the argument cant be deemed persuasive.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 16 15
No. of Words: 427 350
No. of Characters: 2181 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.546 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.108 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.842 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.642 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.382 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.6 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 497, Rule ID: THROUGH_THOROUGH[1]
Message: Did you mean 'thorough' (accurate, exhaustive)?
Suggestion: thorough
...ide more substantial evidence such as a through survey or poll of the consumers avoidin...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 504, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...more likely to be involved in vandalisms might be a possible reason for vandalism...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...general shopper in the central plaza. Finally author makes his flawed assumptions tha...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 265, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...he above mentioned reasons the argument cant be deemed persuasive.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, may, second, secondly, so, well, in conclusion, such as, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2215.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.18735362998 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93828981715 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.423887587822 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 688.5 705.55239521 98% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
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: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.0226870822 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.4375 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6875 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.125 5.70786347227 107% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.336751151083 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.124130813948 0.0743258471296 167% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115178912628 0.0701772020484 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.200196682648 0.128457276422 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116239918932 0.0628817314937 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => 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: 13.12 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => 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.