"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 author of the argument claims that in the Central plaza the popularity of skateboarding is increasing dramatically, as a result of this number of shoppers has been steadily decreasing. To support this view, the author says that owners of the shop in central plaza believe that the decrease in their business is because of the number of skateboards increased in the plaza. The argument also pointed out that because of the increase in the skateboard the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza has increased dramatically.
To determine the validity of the argument, we must understand the real reasons behind the decrease in the business and stores in the Central Plaza. We must also know whether the absence of problem-related to litter and vandalism throughout the plaza can be attributed to the decrease in the number of shoppers. To understand the effectiveness of the recommendation, it would be important to analyze whether prohibiting the skateboard in the plaza will resolve the issue.
First, it is important to know whether there has been a significant change in the other factor that impacting the shopper and their business in Central Plaza. There may be a chance that the products they sell or produce are found to be defective and the government has banned those stored who found guilty from Central Plaza or a new plaza has been open which is much closer to the living area of the society and shop in the new Plaza provide good at the cheaper rate and the best quality available.
Second, the author talked about the problem of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza because of the skateboard, but an increase in litter and vandalism is because of the reduction of the security personnel or lack of security in the Central plaza. So without proper reason with the evidence, we cannot say that the skateboards are the real reason behind this.
Last but not least, if we expect that prohibiting the skateboard would help in increase in the business and the stores, then we must understand the what changes have been made by the skateboard in the Central Plaza that cost the businesses of the store owner or whether the stores in the Central Plaza were doing greater business before the skateboard. So, We need to understand the above-mentioned point to prohibit the skateboards in the Plaza.
In sum, the author's argument is based on unconfirmed and unsubstantiated assumptions. In order to evaluate the merits of the argument, we need more data and information about the points mentioned in the argument. To make the argument stronger, the author needs to outline the real reason behind the reduction in both businesses and the stores in the Central Plaza.
Comments
e-rater score report
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2203 1500
No. of Different Words: 183 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.863 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.77 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 30.2 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.589 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.434 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.586 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.219 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...kateboards in the Plaza. In sum, the authors argument is based on unconfirmed and un...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, may, second, so, then, as a result
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 : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2247.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 453.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.96026490066 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82977238518 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.41059602649 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 697.5 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 76.6424309519 57.8364921388 133% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.8 119.503703932 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.2 23.324526521 129% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.73333333333 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.408236491805 0.218282227539 187% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.159592355567 0.0743258471296 215% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.123099640696 0.0701772020484 175% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.225733512705 0.128457276422 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.117145140026 0.0628817314937 186% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.49 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.08 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => 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.