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 following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that the skateboarders are causing the Central Plaza store owners to lose business, rendering its conclusion invalid.
First, the argument fails to address how the increase in the number of skateboarders has directly caused the business in Central Plaza to decline. Although the decrease in business has been occurring simultaneously as the increase in the popularity of skateboarding, there is no evidence the the skateboarding is the reason behind this decrease. It is quite fathomable that the decrease in business in Central Plaza is either caused by the construction of a newer plaza elsewhere or different outlet malls more attractive to customers. In fact, if more skateboarders are visiting Central Plaza, they may purchase items from the plaza itself, thereby resulting in more business for the store owners. Had the argument provided evidence, such as through a survey or poll, that customers are consciously eschewing Central Plaza because of these skateboarders, it would strengthen the argument.
The argument also fails to provide evidence that the skateboarders are the ones who are guilty of vandalizing and littering. For one, other patrons who frequent the mall may be culpable of throwing garbage onto the street. In addition, it is quite possible that gang members are the ones who are vandalizing the plaza by spraying paint and carving gang signs, not the skateboarders. In fact, maybe the business has decreased because patrons are afraid of gang members, rather than the innocuous skateboarders. If the argument had substantiated the allegations that the skateboarders were the ones vandalizing and littering, it still would have to prove that these actions were leading to a decline in business.
Finally, the argument assumes that business will return to its previously high levels that were reached two years ago. One could easily imagine that the economic situation today is not identical to the state of the economy two years ago. With the fluctuations in unemployment rate, job security, and international trade, the store owners cannot expect the sales today to be at the same levels as they were previously. In fact, it is quite possible that tax laws have changed to incentivize citizens to shop less and to save more. Had the argument provided proof that the economy was exactly in the same condition as it was two years ago, it would strengthen the argument.
Because the argument relies on several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza would increase business in Central Plaza to its previously high levels. For the aforementioned reasons, the argument is unlikely to persuade the city to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
... of skateboarding, there is no evidence the the skateboarding is the reason behind this...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
... of skateboarding, there is no evidence the the skateboarding is the reason behind this...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, if, may, so, still, then, in addition, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2413.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 453.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32671081678 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61343653406 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01121392866 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470198675497 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 765.9 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.2182892467 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.0 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8421052632 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05263157895 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284873106661 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0934734554119 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0845541312448 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.170405877733 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.112969128241 0.0628817314937 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.75 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.