"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."
The statement given states that there is a steady decrease in the number of shoppers in the Central Plaza due to the increased popularity of skateboarding. The store owners in the Central plaza also blame that due to increases skateboarding their business seems to be decreased. They also condemn the increase of vandalism and litter and recommend to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza so that their business will develop again. It can be seen that this statement put forth by the store owners of the Central Plaza contains many flaws which they fail to comprehend. Let us discuss the drawbacks of the statement below.
First of all, the shopkeepers state that the numbers of shoppers have been reduced due to the popularity of skateboarding. This is a false statement put forth by them. It is seen that over the past two years, there has been two other shopping malls opened nearby the Central Plaza. It can be true that the shoppers might have been enjoying shopping in the other two malls which has more varieties of shops. As per the survey taken last month from the shoppers, the other two malls seem to lead in terms of sales than the Central Plaza. So the shoppers failed to look through this perspective. It is also noted that the number of skateboarding is equally high in the other two malls and the people enjoy watching skateboarding. The Central Plaza is also the oldest plaza in the city that the customers have been visiting over a decade. Since people have been introduced to two other new shopping malls, they tend to explore and shop in those malls. Therefore, the store owners must concentrate in upgrading their stores and try to increase the sales rather than complaining about the skateboarders.
Secondly the store owners also state the increase in the litter and vandalism in the plaza due to the skateboarding. The other two malls do not report any issues regarding the litter and vandalism. Hence it can be possible that the security of the Central plaza has to be increased and the staffs has to be hired to clean the Plaza now and there. Since the sales has been decreased in the Central Plaza, the staffs hired for security and cleaning were reduced to half. This might be the reason for the increased littering and theft in the Plaza. The survey taken by the Public Hygiene Department last year states that the Central has to increase their hygienic conditions. This was long before skateboarding was allowed in the Plaza. Regarding the vandalism in the plaza, most of the things lost belongs to the skateboarders not that of the shop keepers or the shoppers. Therefore, the Central plaza should start tightening is security.
Therefore, from all the evidences given above, it can be stated that prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza will not improve the sales of the store owners. It can be seen that they try to blame the skateboarders for their poor sales instead of updating their store based on the needs of the customers. It is also the responsibility of the Central plaza owners to provide a safe and hygienic conditions to the shoppers and the skateboarders.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
also need to argue:
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: 27 15
No. of Words: 534 350
No. of Characters: 2533 1500
No. of Different Words: 192 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.807 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.743 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 149 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.778 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.057 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.342 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.471 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.123 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'recommend prohibiting'.
Suggestion: recommend prohibiting
...he increase of vandalism and litter and recommend to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza so that ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1098, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...an complaining about the skateboarders. Secondly the store owners also state the...
^^^^
Line 3, column 199, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ues regarding the litter and vandalism. Hence it can be possible that the security of...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, as to, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 16.3942115768 30% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2578.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 534.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 4.82771535581 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67505938477 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.376404494382 0.468620217663 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 783.0 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 4.96107784431 242% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 34.0223036665 57.8364921388 59% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 95.4814814815 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7777777778 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.2962962963 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.453053448127 0.218282227539 208% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.136852610184 0.0743258471296 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.091444097446 0.0701772020484 130% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.30991618252 0.128457276422 241% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0771519899114 0.0628817314937 123% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.2 14.3799401198 78% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.73 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.24 8.32208582834 87% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.