In the argument, the author concludes that if skateboarding is prohibited in Central Plaza, then the store owners here will earn a striking profit the same as its previously high levels. In my view, the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
First of all, the reliability of the survey, cited by the author as main evidence, that many store owners attributed the decrease in their business to skateboard users can cast doubt on. The survey does not provide the total number of Central Plaza store owners. It is possible that the number of owners who complain skateboard users is ten, but the amount of store owners of Central Plaza is 1,000. Consequently, several owners' views cannot represent the most general opinions in Central Plaza. Besides, the questions, used by the survey, might be misleading. The interviewers just provided two selections for store owners when study the real reasons for the decrease in business of Central Plaza. One of two selections was related to skateboard users. Store owners selected the option because they wanted to find an external reason or they did not like noising sports. We cannot accept the further inferences before the author shows more details of the survey.
Secondly, the causal relationship, the author implying, between skateboarding and a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism is problematic. The author ignores many other factors, unrelate to skateboard, could lead to increasing of litter and vandalism. For example, the people, lived in the city where Central Plaza locates, walked through the shopping mall for resisting an inequal policy and they left many litters here. What's more, the increasing of vandalism is the result of lacking money for the management of Central Plaza to maintain public devices. Without carefully and clearly looking into those factors, the author's inferences are unconvincing.
Last but not least, the author assumes that if skateboarding is prohibited here, and then the business here will return to normal levels. Prohibiting skateboarding here is not necessarily lead to the increase of store owners' business. Perhaps, some people, loving other sports unrelate to skateboarding, enjoy themselves in Central Plaza after prohibiting skateboarding here. Those people will also lead to complaints from the store owners. Prohibiting skateboarding is insufficient to prove the increase of business, as the author predicted. Customers might go shopping in other malls or cities because they will spend less money for the same objects. The author cannot arbitrarily conclude that conclusion without precluding those factors.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better support the conclusion, the author should provide more details about the survey. To better assess the argument, the author must meticulously eliminate other factors that might lead to the decrease in store owners' business.
- 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 numbe 60
- Some people believe that government officials must carry out the will of the people they serve Others believe that officials should base their decisions on their own judgment Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your 75
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing a 72
e-rater score report
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 457 350
No. of Characters: 2404 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.624 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.26 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.699 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 196 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.577 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.576 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.385 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.313 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 440, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...policy and they left many litters here. Whats more, the increasing of vandalism is th...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, consequently, first, if, look, second, secondly, so, then, for example, first of all, in my view
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2474.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 457.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41356673961 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62358717085 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78928468859 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494529540481 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 756.0 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.1024195911 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.1538461538 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.5769230769 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46153846154 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.304558429279 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0863331649072 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0803577567697 0.0701772020484 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161870978872 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0921377117367 0.0628817314937 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => 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: 13.8 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => 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.