The author recommends that skateboarding should be banned in Central Plaza as it is disrupting the business there. To support his argument the author points out that due to increase in the popularity of skateboarding, number of shoppers are decreasing in the plaza. also, he claims that there is increase in amount of litter around the plaza due to skateboarding. The argument is rife with many loopholes. I found the argument unconvincing for three critical reasons.
Firstly, the argument is fraught with dubious assumptions. The author blindly believes that the decrease in sales of Central Plaza is only due to increased popularity of skateboarding but he fails to consider the other reasons possible behind this. It is entirely possible that some new Plaza has opened up near that which are better than Central Plaza. Perhaps, the price of Central Plaza risen up steeply and side by side deteriorating the quality of products and services. The belief of plaza owners that their business has been shut down only due to skateboarding is flawed in itself and they must analyse other plausible reasons for that.
Furthermore, the proponent of the argument fails to give exact number of Central Plaza store owners who thinks the skateboarding as the sole reason for their poor business. The lack of proper survey makes the analysis of the argument somewhat more difficult. Had the author had provided the number of owners who are against this skateboarding, we will be able to assess the argument more easily and reliably. But the lack of proper statistically representative sample and the mention of word "many owners" is leading us to nowhere. The author is recommending based on only some owner's opinion and does not seek the opinions of all owners.
Finally, the author unfairly assumes that there is increased vandalism and litter around Plaza due to skateboarding only. The author cannot provide any evidence to support this assertion. He again fails to consider other possible reasons for this. It is completely possible that there is some food court nearby or non-availability of dustbins in the surrounding might be forcing customers to litter. Without any evidence the author is blaming only skateboarders for the litter and vandalism. Thus, due to lack of valid evidence, the author is not able to establish the direct relation between vandalism and litter with the skateboarding.
In the sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. It fails to convince me that skateboarding is the only reason for the reduction of business in the Central Plaza. Predicting any trend needs some more important information which the author has not paid attention to and fails to establish direct relation between the both situations. To better assess the argument I need more information about several aspects mentioned in the argument. In the light of above discussion, the argument sounds illogical and unconvincing and calls for a better solution and an alternative.
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 23
- "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 numb 63
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- duplicated to argument 1
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 25 15
No. of Words: 483 350
No. of Characters: 2443 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.688 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.058 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.823 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.32 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.186 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.28 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.507 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.142 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 267, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Also
...f shoppers are decreasing in the plaza. also, he claims that there is increase in am...
^^^^
Line 5, column 589, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'owners'' or 'owner's'?
Suggestion: owners'; owner's
...thor is recommending based on only some owners opinion and does not seek the opinions ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2507.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 483.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19047619048 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68799114503 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92700760424 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451345755694 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 784.8 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.5150275283 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4230769231 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.5769230769 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.34615384615 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.88822355289 218% => Less 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: 0.286356120302 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0803109816978 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0904369453869 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.176690460402 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.106278475992 0.0628817314937 169% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.