The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the letter avers that the prohibition on skateboarding in Central Plaza should be lifted. To support his idea, the writer mentions some evidence that skateboarding is not problematic and its revival would be beneficial for the plaza. However, such types of evidence are based on unwarranted assumptions or logical fallacies. The scrutiny of the statements of the owner, who writes the letter, would reveal such flaws.
To begin with, it appears that the author does not present any concrete data. Although he remarks that there has only been a small increase in the amount of visitors to Central Plaza, he does not show any statistical data. Thus, it is not possible to clarify if the increase rate has been low. It is likely that the author underestimates the increased number of visitors. Similarly, the owner also does not state the concrete figure of accidents including litter and vandalism. While he claims that these problems still exist in the plaza, the amount of such accidents might decrease over two years. For example, the reported cases of vandalism or litter might decline by twenty or thirty percent. In this case, the level of seriousness of the aforementioned litter and vandalism cannot be said the same compared to the previous years.
Furthermore, the example of Monroe Park does not support the argument of the author as it can be a specific case that cannot be generalized. For instance, it is probable that the number of individuals who enjoy skateboarding in Monroe Park has already been low. Besides the park may be distant from the main residential areas and therefore skateboarders simply prefer other places to the park. Without examination of such factors, the comparison between Central Plaza and Monroe Park cannot be cited as evidence of the main idea of the author.
In addition, it is highly questionable what the former glory of the plaza is. As the author admits, there has been an increase in the number of visitors to the plaza even though he adds that the increase rate is low. Thus, it is not possible to state that the plaza has lost its glory if the plaza has been filled with more visitors than two years ago. If the author intends to argue that the plaza has declined, he has to prove that the number of visitors has fallen or the maintenance level of the plaza has been worse.
Finally, it should be also doubted if the only reason skateboarding was banned is the related litter and vandalism. While the author mentions them as the only reason of prohibition, it is likely that the city considered various factors and made a conclusion that skateboarding is not fit for the plaza but deleterious in general. For instance, the city might witness that other visitors, such as bicycle riders or walkers, had been irritated by the behaviors of skateboarders. It is also possible that the plaza itself is not appropriate for specific activities including skateboarding because of its narrow space or neighboring structures that restrict outdoor activities. Thus, although it is right that the concern for letter and vandalism is excessive, there may be other considerations that cannot be influenced by the argument of the author.
In conclusion, the opinion of the owner is not cogent unless he adds more concrete data to validate his idea. For example, he should compare the accident rates between the present and the previous years. Without this sort of effort, it is not reasonable to admit his conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Out of topic
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 585 350
No. of Characters: 2820 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.918 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.821 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.675 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 199 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.893 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.235 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.136 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author of the letter avers that the ...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s the letter, would reveal such flaws. To begin with, it appears that the autho...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e same compared to the previous years. Furthermore, the example of Monroe Park ...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...idence of the main idea of the author. In addition, it is highly questionable w...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nce level of the plaza has been worse. Finally, it should be also doubted if th...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...luenced by the argument of the author. In conclusion, the opinion of the owner ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, finally, furthermore, however, if, may, similarly, so, still, therefore, thus, while, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in general, sort of, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 49.0 28.8173652695 170% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2888.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93675213675 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74777166175 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420512820513 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 909.0 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 4.96107784431 262% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3979388013 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.142857143 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8928571429 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.53571428571 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.255526674203 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.068554216524 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0578343936816 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130484997331 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568265548257 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => 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: 11.37 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 137.0 98.500998004 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.