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.
In this letter from a Central Plaza(CP) store owner to the editor, the author predicts that the number of shoppers in CP stores will return to its previously high levels if the city prohibits skateboarding in CP. To justify this prediction, the author points out that the number of shoppers in CP decreased steadily results from the increase of skateboard users in the plaza and a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Nevertheless, this prediction is in effect untenable due to several flaws after scrutiny, albeit it may appear plausible at a cursory glance.
To begin with, the author claims that shoppers decreased in the CP stores due to the popularity of skateboarding increasing dramatically. Although it is possible, the author offers no evidence to corroborate this assumption. It is very likely that the quality of goods from stores in CP decreased sharply and price still keeps high as before so the customer chooses to shop in other stores rather than CP. To fortify this prediction, the author has to answer the below questions whether the quality of products in the CP store is as same as before and what is the real reason that leads the customer to decrease CP shops' visiting. If the author can convince me that the decrease in shoppers is caused by skateboarding, this argument will be significantly strengthened. Otherwise, the trustworthiness of this argument is undermined.
Besides, the author asserts that the amount of litter and vandalism brings a negative impact on the number of shoppers. Nevertheless, there is no guarantee that it is necessarily the case, the author does not provide any reliable evidence to affirm this assumption. What is of equal possibility is that the previous customers of CP stores care much more about the price and service than the environment such as vandalism and litter. To illustrate this point clearly, the author has to give the answer to questions whether the decrease of CP shopper is really entailed by litter and vandalism. Without accounting for and ruling out these and other alternative scenarios, the author cannot bolster this prediction.
Ultimately, even if the evidence turns out to support the aforementioned assumptions, the author simply relies on the assumption that the business of CP will recover to a previous high level once prohibit the skateboarding, and none of any scientific conclusive evidence is provided to confirm this assumption. It is reasonable to doubt that what the author assumes will not happen in reality. It is as possible that the customers who decrease to visit the CP's stores afterward are wont to shop at other stores. To reach the cited conclusion, the author must answer the questions whether it will indeed make an effort to bring the customers back to the former level of the CP store by prohibiting the skateboarding in CP.
In sum, this argument is not based on valid evidence or sound reasons, none of which is dispensable for a conclusive prediction. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author ought to reason convincingly, cite more persuasive evidence, and take every possible consideration into account.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 522 350
No. of Characters: 2596 1500
No. of Different Words: 231 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.78 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.973 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.849 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 201 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 137 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 18.856 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, if, may, nevertheless, really, so, still, then, as to, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2653.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 522.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08237547893 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96072719464 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 237.0 204.123752495 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454022988506 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 819.9 705.55239521 116% => 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: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3114697122 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.65 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.1 23.324526521 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.3 5.70786347227 75% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.15470783827 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512931262112 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0778610992582 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0965890995871 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112334870145 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.