The argument claims that the prevalence of skateboarding negatively affects the quantity of customers in Central Plaza. Stated in this way the argument: reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and ill-defined terminology and fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and had several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the quantity of skateboard players in the plaza is the cause of the decline in the business of store owners. This statement is a stretch since the author does not provide any statistical evidence indicating the dropped percentage of their revenues lately. Suppose, for example, the main problem lies in the quality and the price of their products or incorrect behaviors of salespersons. If it is, decreasing the number of skateboarders would not be an effective solution. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that their income before and after the appearance of skateboard users.
Second, the argument claims that the Central Plaza witnesses a significant growth in the quantity of rubbish and destruction. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of skateboarders and the amount of trash and vandalism. To illustrate, the store owners might not take any serious action to clean their litter such as placing garbage bin in visible areas so that customers could easily throw their trash; or the cause of the destruction could come from some unfair competitive practices. If the argument had provided evidence that skateboard users were caught in the scene while throwing trash or destroying stuff then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the author ensures that if skateboarding is proscribed, the business in the plaza would return to previous levels. Does the author consider the scenario that those skateboard users are the reason attracting customers to the plaza? What if the skateboarders has been contributing a handsome income to the revenue of the Central Plaza? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts to support the current conclusion that prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza would improve the business level.
- All results of publicly funded scientific studies should be made available to the general public free of charge. Scientific journals that charge a subscription or newsstand price are profiting unfairly. 50
- Claim: Governments must ensure that their major cities receive the financial support they need in order to thrive.Reason: It is primarily in cities that a nation's cultural traditions are preserved and generated. 79
- The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep th 90
- Some people claim that not enough of the waste from homes is recycled They say that the only way to increase recycling is for governments to make it a legal requirement To what extent do you think laws are needed to make people recycle more of their wast 61
- Nowadays, more and more people want to travel to remote areas such as the South Pole. Do the advantages of this type of travel outweigh the disadvantages? 78
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 423 350
No. of Characters: 2221 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.535 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.251 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.907 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 95 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.263 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.051 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.327 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.544 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.061 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2271.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 423.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36879432624 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.97414560614 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51536643026 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0837796091 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.526315789 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2631578947 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.42105263158 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.194541230945 0.218282227539 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0680165791399 0.0743258471296 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.070620668523 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.114937110153 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326267032602 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.