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 author have failed to render the strong evidence for the direct relation between increase in skateboarders and decrease in shoppers in Central Mall. Moreover, the
Increase amount of litter and vandalism have no clear evidences to convince the readers. In addition, the author’s prediction about returning the business to its previously level does not have any supporting evidence to persuasive the readers.
Number of shoppers have decreased does not directly imply that one who used to come for shopping have found skateboarding as a substitute. The skateboarding have attracted many people to the mall, but it does not mean they are the same people who used to do shopping from their mall. They can be kids or couples who have just come for merry-making. Such people are also responsible for increase of litter and vandalism.
Furthermore, the author brings a 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 had profound influence on their sales. The big percentage of shoppers who used to come to Central Plaza may not be even interested in skateboarding, and hence they are not the ones who are going to skateboarding instead of shopping. The people who did shopping at Central Plaza may be affected by external conditions like opening of another shopping area in same locality, or increase in prices of products in Mall. Central Plaza may not have satisfied their customers with their quality of products or services. People may have been affected by current economical conditions like found cheaper imported goods, or increase in tax.
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. Prediction a trend needs analyzing the certain important measures that the author does not pay attention to them at all. So even if they prohibit skateboarding, they will impact the surge of people to the mall. But at the same time, this will not increase the shoppers.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 167, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... shoppers in Central Mall. Moreover, the Increase amount of litter and vandalism ...
^^^
Line 4, column 187, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...teboarding have attracted many people to the mall, but it does not mean they are ...
^^
Line 8, column 775, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
...eople may have been affected by current economical conditions like found cheaper imported ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 163, 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...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'while', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.25 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.184895833333 0.15541462614 119% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0651041666667 0.0836205057962 78% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0651041666667 0.0520304965353 125% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0364583333333 0.0272364105082 134% => OK
Prepositions: 0.122395833333 0.125424944231 98% => OK
Participles: 0.0598958333333 0.0416121511921 144% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.82336210287 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0390625 0.026700313972 146% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0911458333333 0.113004496875 81% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0234375 0.0255425247493 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0182291666667 0.0127820249294 143% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2208.0 2731.13054187 81% => OK
No of words: 356.0 446.07635468 80% => More words wanted.
Chars per words: 6.20224719101 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.376404494382 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.297752808989 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.247191011236 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.13202247191 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82336210287 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 207.018472906 86% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 52.6772223818 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 20.9411764706 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.1814010404 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.882352941 141.986410481 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9411764706 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.823529411765 0.724660767414 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.7164573695 51.9672348444 98% => OK
Elegance: 1.50909090909 1.8405768891 82% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.420665194227 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.120367993056 0.135418324435 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0780796713478 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.552672242769 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.157385532974 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.173148374795 0.193483328276 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0917482085309 0.0970749176394 95% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.371102743569 0.42659136922 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0484648980038 0.0774707102158 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.292524388221 0.312017818177 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0629002181434 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.