The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner.
"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author concludes that skateboarding should be prohibited in the Central Plaza, because it is responsible for the decrease in the business. The author's line of reasoning is that there has been an increase in vandalism and amount of litter throughout the plaza. This argument is not convincing for various reasons as it is rife with holes and assumptions.
First of all, prohibition of skateboarding is based upon the questionable assumption that skateboarders are responsible for increased litter and vandalism. It is entirely possible that vandalism and litter may be due to increase in the number of window shoppers as this could also be the possibility of decreased business. Hence, the author's generalization is unreliable.
Second, the author assumes that increased skateboarding has led to a decrease in the business. This assumption is unwarranted. It seems equally reasonable to assume that instead, skateboarding could be used as a free publicity stunt for promoting the business of Central Plaza. Hence, it would be presumptuous to conclude that increased skateboarding and decrease in business are correlated.
Third, the decrease in the business, which the author assumes is due to skateboarding, could also be that the stock in Central Plaza is not trendy or there could also be a possibility that the prices and taxes on the products they sell are exorbitant. Hence, it cannot be used to effectively back the author's argument.
Finally, the author uses a causal flaw in the argument. This flaw provides confusing correlation of the two events with a causal relation between the two. It assumes that increased skateboarding is responsible for decrease in business, which would require further evidence.
In sum, the argument is not a strong argument. The author must provide support for the assumption that skateboarding and business are correlated. As far as the litter and vandalism are concerned, it could be caused by the window shoppers. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just a causal relation.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-25 | lanhhoang | 68 | view |
| 2020-01-07 | Jai1332 | 63 | view |
| 2019-12-03 | harshit kukreja | 69 | view |
| 2019-06-26 | Primace | 43 | view |
| 2019-06-10 | pallavipolas | 55 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK, can be put together with argument 2
----------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 327 350
No. of Characters: 1693 1500
No. of Different Words: 136 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.252 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.177 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.04 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 127 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 84 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.211 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.865 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.421 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 335, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ility of decreased business. Hence, the authors generalization is unreliable. Second...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 302, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... cannot be used to effectively back the authors argument. Finally, the author uses a...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, if, may, second, so, third, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1747.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 327.0 441.139720559 74% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.34250764526 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.25242769721 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12155279854 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 141.0 204.123752495 69% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.43119266055 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 542.7 705.55239521 77% => 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
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.3565129189 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9473684211 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.2105263158 23.324526521 74% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.63157894737 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.165727602528 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0555472549256 0.0743258471296 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0580461661565 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102437757452 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0560488976032 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.1 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 75.0 98.500998004 76% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.