The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
"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 editorial from the central plaza owner infers that the plaza will be returned to their previously high levels by prohibiting the skateboarding in it. But this argument is rife with holes and assumptions, and thus not strong enough to lead to the conclusion given by plaza’s owner.
First of all, before accusing the skateboarding for decreasing the sale of other shops, the reason behind its popularity must be known. What if it is the only club in that area? Or what if it is the most affordable one from the whole plaza? Or maybe it provides many more amenities to its customers to their costs(fees). For example, may be to achieve more sales, the owner (of skateboarding) releases some new methods, thereby gives a good amount of discount in various forms such as by a decrease in fees, by offering an extra month for training, or they may give free skateboards to the customers for training. So, if this is true, then it renders the author’s claim about prohibiting skateboarding.
Secondly, the writer blames the consumers of skateboarding for increase of waste in the plaza. But probably this assumption is wrong because of some reasons below. The argument does not prove the writer’s assumption right. Because what if the shopkeepers of the plaza are irresponsible from their duties towards environment? Or what if there are no dustbins to throw any garbage? As a citizen, it is their duty to keep their places neat and clean. Now talking about the vandalization, it is not necessary that it would be done by skateboarder’s customers. There are possibilities that defacement is done by others. It may be done by any stray animals. So, either of this scenarios have merit, then conclusion fall down.
And lastly, the argument stated that the sales of others are diminished due to increasing demand of skating. However, what if the quality of other seller’s goods were deteriorated? Or may be their stores were not being easily reachable to the customers. For instance, the plaza has four floor and having only stairs, no elevator. Therefore some consumers having characteristics like old age, lack of time, or diseases(asthma, any problem related to heart/lungs) are unable to take stairs instead of the elevator. Consequently, their market falls.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to answer the above questions and provides some more detailed information then it will be possible to accept the writer’s claim regarding prohibition of skateboarding to improve the market of the other venders.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 666, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...one by any stray animals. So, either of this scenarios have merit, then conclusion f...
^^^^
Line 4, column 330, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...or and having only stairs, no elevator. Therefore some consumers having characteristics l...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...provides some more detailed information then it will be possible to accept the write...
^^^^
Line 5, column 360, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...mprove the market of the other venders.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, talking about, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.4196629213 64% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2198.0 2235.4752809 98% => OK
No of words: 434.0 442.535393258 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.06451612903 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01586058449 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 215.323595506 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539170506912 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 704.065955056 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 59.2512951448 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 84.5384615385 118.986275619 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.6923076923 23.4991977007 71% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.15384615385 5.21951772744 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145928491661 0.243740707755 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0362041067204 0.0831039109588 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0557116657027 0.0758088955206 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0885267452582 0.150359130593 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0722761566908 0.0667264976115 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.7 14.1392134831 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.8420337079 113% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.1743820225 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.77 12.1639044944 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 100.480337079 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.