"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of this arguments claims that prohibiting the skate boarding will help to bring the sale of the central plaza at its original(initial) levels, by assuming that skateboarding is hampering the shoppers of the central plaza. Although the argument seems plausible, a close scruting reveals its logical unintenability.
At the first place, the autor report the decrease in number of shoppers in central plaza; but the popularity of the skateboarding is dramatically increased. It is not clear, however, the validity and scope of the given premises. For example, whether the increased number of skateboarding is inside the plaza, outside or nearby the plaza. It is hard to say that, for of the increased popularity of skateboarding the number of shoppers in plaza is affected. Probably there might be some other factor for decreasing the shoppers like increase in price, lack of services and various other. Unless the given premise is fully valid, and reliable, it cannot be effectively used to back the author argument.
Secondly, the author implies the increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. No where there is mentioned that the skateboarder are responsible for these litter and vandalism. The author was too quick to assume that the skateboarder are the major for the damage and dirtiness of the plaza. Probably the shop owner can through there garbages in the plaza, for of lack of cleaning from the plaza sectors. We donot know. Regardless of whether the causes for the litter and vandalism, the author doesnot effectively shows a connection between the skateholders and the increased in amounts of litter and vandalism.
Based on the saying of the plaza owners, the author assumes that the decrease in business is due to skateboard users in plaza. It is not clearly mention that how many of the plaza owner beleives the stakeboarder as major cause. For example, if two out of ten owners believes skateholders as a major cause for the reduction in shoppers, then the rest eight owners might have some different opinion. also the reason for decreasing the shopper in the plaza mentioned on the argument may be because few new plaza are established which offers some rebates, we never know.
In summary, the author fails to prove that the increased in number of users of skateholder is the major cause for decreasing in number of shopper of the central plaza. thus, the given argument is not entirely and logically convincing because it is based on few unproven assumption. To make the argument more persuasive, the author should provide more information about the reason why the shoppers stops to go to the plaza.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
The argument 3 should 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: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 440 350
No. of Characters: 2164 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.58 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.918 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.73 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 151 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.158 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.394 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.316 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.552 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 15, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
The author of this arguments claims that prohibiting the s...
^^^^
Line 3, column 102, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: Now
...ter and vandalism throughout the plaza. No where there is mentioned that the skate...
^^
Line 3, column 634, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sed in amounts of litter and vandalism. Based on the saying of the plaza owners,...
^^^
Line 4, column 399, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Also
...ners might have some different opinion. also the reason for decreasing the shopper i...
^^^^
Line 4, column 399, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: also,
...ners might have some different opinion. also the reason for decreasing the shopper i...
^^^^
Line 5, column 168, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Thus
...number of shopper of the central plaza. thus, the given argument is not entirely and...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus, as to, for example, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2217.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03863636364 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80538793151 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.459090909091 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 700.2 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.4355886869 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.571428571 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9523809524 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.7619047619 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.341731432636 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.112971278355 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0996607738359 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.204988009553 0.128457276422 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650915199219 0.0628817314937 104% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.11 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.