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 concludes that the city council should lift its ban on skateboarding in the plaza. The owner states that there has not been much increase in the number of visitors and the littering and vandalism activities still persist. To further bolster his/her claim, the owner cites an example of Monroe Park where skateboarding is allowed. These claims made by the author are rife with loopholes. In order to support his/her premise the owner must answer three questions.
First of all, the author does not provide evidence on the number of increase in visitors. He/she states that there has been a small increase in visitors, but does not provide the exact figures. For example, if out of a total tally of 15 people, 10 more have started visiting the park, then although a small number in itself, but it constitutes a large percentage increase compared to the previous number of visitors. Hence in order to validate his/her claim, the author of the letter must answer, how many more people have visited the park since the ban, with respect to the previous visitors? or what is the percentage increase in the number of people ?
Secondly, the author fails to acknowledge whether there has been any decrease in such activities ?. The owner states that these activities still persists. But, it is highly probable that these activities have reduced as a result of the ban and only a few areas are affected. Perhaps, this corroborated the claim that there is an increase in the number of visitors in the park. If this stands true, then the authors argument stands water.
Finally, the owner further supports his conclusion by stating that Monroe Park faces no problems of littering and vandalism although, skateboarding is allowed. This claim is based on unstated assumptions. The following questions come to mind, is a penalty being imposed on littering and vandalising the park ? Are the skateboarders charged a high entry fee in order to skate in the park premises ? If the answer to the above questions is yes, then they provide a probable reason as to why such activities do not take place in the park. Perhaps, a penalty keeps the skateboarders in check and they refrain from littering and vandalising the property. Additionally, a high entry ticket has reduced the number of skateboarders considerably, which again leads to less nuisance. The author must answer these questions to provide evidence for his claim.
In conclusion, it is possible that the skateboarders are not responsible the actions but, the authors fails to address the above questions which make his/her reasons stand unwarranted thereby render his/her conclusion false.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-01-04 | tengriqagan | 38 | view |
| 2020-10-05 | Barry159357 | 66 | view |
| 2020-06-15 | mg1371 | 62 | view |
- 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 t 66
- The following appeared as an editorial in the student newspaper of Groveton College To combat the recently reported dramatic rise in cheating among college and university students these institutions should adopt honor codes similar to Groveton s which cal 50
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station Over the past year our late night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news During this time period most of the complain 50
Comments
-
-
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The author of the letter concludes that ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the owner must answer three questions. First of all, the author does not provid...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 423, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...red to the previous number of visitors. Hence in order to validate his/her claim, the...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 600, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Or
... with respect to the previous visitors? or what is the percentage increase in the ...
^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...age increase in the number of people ? Secondly, the author fails to acknowledg...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 413, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the park. If this stands true, then the authors argument stands water. Finally, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hen the authors argument stands water. Finally, the owner further supports his ...
^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ons to provide evidence for his claim. In conclusion, it is possible that the s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, second, secondly, so, still, then, as to, for example, in conclusion, as a result, first of all, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 4.0 16.3942115768 24% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2221.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 440.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04772727273 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57997565096 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72902627483 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.454545454545 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 682.2 705.55239521 97% => 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: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.1751869513 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.5416666667 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.3333333333 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.164415065791 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0510882975619 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0534197474096 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0952064971875 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0779218315347 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.