"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."
In this argument, the author urged to consider that due to the increase of skateboarding in the central plaza there a significant decrease in the business of the shop owners. To support this recommendation, the author cites that the number of shoppers also been reduced steadily with the popularity of sports. While some people agree to this, I find this argument unconvincing and not cogent for some reasons.
First, the author states that there is a significant reduction of people coming to the central plaza particularly due to an increase in skateboarding. This claim cannot be accepted as it stands. It is entirely possible that there could be some other newly opened shopping complex that has much large amount of shops from every domain or perhaps, the quality of the product in central plaza decreased due to some reasons possibly the increase in the population of the town in recent years. Therefore, correlation does not prove causation. While, the brief statement of prohibiting the sports seems to appear a robust idea, it deficit between what stated and what it is there to clear for and is too large to be overlooked. This ultimately causes a week argument that will count against the author conclusion.
Second, the author hypothesizes that there is an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism due to the skateboarding performed by some people and by prohibiting it completely, there will be a boast in a business. This assumption is unwarranted. It is equally possible to assume that the littering is done by the people who shop in the mall itself or by their kids. Also, it can be the result of less number of dustbins installed in the premises which the author did not include in his argument. As for the destruction of properties, it is nowhere given in the argument whether it is done by the kids who enjoy skateboarding in the mall or the others. Therefore, this assumption is over generalized and author's argument lacks the compelling and affluent reasoning to convince his proposal.
However, it can be said that central plaza is the place where people come to shop for there needs that ranges from clothing or groceries, hence skateboarding within the mall may create disturbance and hinder with the people's movement. But the author is flawed in a way that he fails to substantiate his conclusion with the strong evidence and is teamed with poor reasoning. The careful perusing of evidence provided in the argument reveals that many questions have been left unanswered without which the reader cannot consider it to be consequential.
In conclusion, this is a vague and ambiguous argument, to bolster it the author, must at very least, offer concrete evidence about the correlation for banning the skateboarding with the increase in shoppers and revitalization of business. Perhaps, he can conduct the survey asking the business owners and the shoppers the reason behind their decrease and the causes of vandalism.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-13 | Anish Sapkota | 77 | view |
| 2023-04-06 | sijan | 53 | view |
| 2023-01-26 | ljh5034 | 78 | view |
| 2022-09-25 | ctoluwasedaniel | 68 | view |
| 2022-06-23 | sag15 | 72 | view |
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals. 58
- Claim: Universities should require every student to take a variety of courses outside the student's major field of study.Reason: Acquiring knowledge of various academic disciplines is the best way to become truly educated. 83
- fggxxf 16
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 70
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people whom they serve. 79
Comments
Essay evaluation report
also need to argue:
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.
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 492 350
No. of Characters: 2412 1500
No. of Different Words: 221 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.71 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.902 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.777 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 125 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.491 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.3 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.046 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Do I need to refute every
Do I need to refute every point that the author implied and does the use of tough words increase my scores?
Do I need to refute every
Do I need to refute every point that the author implied?
answer: Yes.
and does the use of tough words increase my scores?
answer: No.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 218, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
... create disturbance and hinder with the peoples movement. But the author is flawed in a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, second, so, therefore, while, as for, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2468.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 492.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0162601626 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86902321412 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465447154472 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 766.8 705.55239521 109% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.794300665 57.8364921388 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.4 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.6 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.21892055515 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638080770579 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0777122354942 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133537989635 0.128457276422 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.063554969023 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.58 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 117.0 98.500998004 119% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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
---------------------
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.