The argument that prohibiting skateboarding cause to returning the business to its previously high level is not entirely logically convincing since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
First, the argument assumes that there is a direct relation among increasing the number of skateboard users and decreasing the business of store owners in central Plaza. While the decrease of quantity of shoppers in central Plaza may have several reasons that the author should take into consideration and then make the relation between this decreasing with the popularity of skateboarding. It is more likely the most proportion of shoppers had economic problems due to economic crisis or inflation and could not to continue their trade. Maybe, people who live around central plaza do not have enough budgets to spend more money on purchasing from the stores in the central plaza. The writer might consider different measures which had directly affect decreasing business in this area.
Second, the argument omits the rapport between the rising of skateboarding user and the damages in central Plaza such as an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism. The author did not offer any explicit evidence to prove that these destructions made by a skateboarder. Moreover, it could be caused by the other central market, if they want to compete deceitfully. It could be likely that in this period because the business was going down so the owner could vandalize their stores to get money from the insurance company.
Furthermore, the author brings weak evidence to prove his argument while the belief of store owners cannot convince the readers significantly because they did not have enough information about other factors that might have a profound influence on their sale. The writer could use stronger evidence and persuade the readers by certain statistics charts and could use the survey method and gather data from store owners about their observations. Increasing the number of skateboard users may have several reasons and do not have any effect on decreasing the business.
The author also failed to illustrate an appropriate conclusion because of two basic reasons. Firstly, generalizing based on weak evidence and secondly prediction in a wrong way without using persuasive evidence to convince the readers. The author could show strong data and prove why prohibiting the skateboarding users lead to increasing the business in central Plaza. It is less likely that having a downward trend for business has only one weak reason like increasing the number of skateboarding in this area. Prediction a trend needs analyzing the certain important measures that the author does not pay attention to them at all.
In conclusion, the argument has several basic weak points that cannot be overlooked easily and the conclusion is not enough strong to prove for the readers. The author does not use unequivocal evidence to support his argument and does not take certain important factors into account when wants to make a direct relation among rising the number of skateboarding users and soaring the rate of crime in Plaza. While the author's argument might have been strengthened by using certain methods and strong evidence and persuade the readers with rendering statistic data.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- either duplicated to argument 1 or it is not necessary
argument 4 -- OK
----------------
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 523 350
No. of Characters: 2716 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.782 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.193 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.679 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.905 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.217 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 162, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a wrong way" with adverb for "wrong"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...n weak evidence and secondly prediction in a wrong way without using persuasive evidence to co...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 417, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...g the rate of crime in Plaza. While the authors argument might have been strengthened b...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, if, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2754.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 523.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26577437859 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72625561591 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 235.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449330783939 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 864.0 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => 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: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.9534907046 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.142857143 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9047619048 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.57142857143 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.285458999266 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904555146099 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0876588863437 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147002672272 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112277665076 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.