3. 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 store owner in the letter contends that due to the increased skateboarders in the Central Plaza, the business in the plaza is experiencing a decrease. Thus, the writer acclaims that the banning of the skateboarders should be implemented in order to recover the business in the Plaza. He assumes that the decrease in the stores is solely due to the skateboarders and the popularity of skateboarding led to the actual increase of the skateboarders. In addition, he makes a hasty generalization that skateboarding causes trash and the breakdown of the objects in the Plaza. There should be further information to determine the validity of the statement that the writer gives.
First, the author claims that the number of skateboarders in the plaza is a reason that the store owners in the plaza is suffering from the loss. However, there should be further information to be validated. There could be other reasons besides the number of skateboarders. The reason that the stores are in loss could be due to the less number of skateboard related sellers compared to the shopping mall near the Central Plaza that they are taking away the customers. Or, skateboarders could be the one that are increasing the stores' sales but it could be the dramatic decrease in other kinds of customers that lessens the sales in the plaza. Therefore, the number of skateboard related sellers should be checked with what kinds of customers are coming into the stores should be checked.
Secondly, the letter writer assumes that the popularity of skateboarding is increasing and this ambivalent in the community leads to the increase in the skateboarders. However, there must be evidence to support this claim. Although the popularity of skateboarding did increase, we cannot confirm that the actual number of skateboarders are increasing. The people who are interested could be the teenagers. However, the teenagers could not actually skateboard due to their studying in school or the financial constraint. Therefore, the actual increased number of the skateboarders compared to the past should be confirmed in order to confirm writer's claim.
Lastly, the store owner in the letter states that the increase of the litter and vandalism is due to the skateboarders. However, there is no evidence of stating this. The law inside the state where the Central Plaza is located could have changed during the past 2 years that people should pay fine if the citizens trash more than the recommended amount for each household. In order not to pay more, the people in the state could have brought their litter to the Central Plaza where they can evade paying fine. Also, we should check whether who destroyed the parts of the plaza.
In conclusion, to confirm that the statement that the increase of the skateboarders is a main reason for the store's suffering should be supported with further information.
| 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 |
- In an attempt to improve highway safety, Prunty County last year lowered its speed limit from 55 to 45 miles per hour on all county highways. But this effort has failed: the number of accidents has not decreased, and, based on reports by the highway patro 57
- 3. 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 Cent 61
- The surest indicator of a great nation is represented not by the achievements of its rulers, artists, or scientists, but by the general welfare of its people. 29
- The following is a recommendation from the business manager of Monarch Books."Since its opening in Collegeville twenty years ago, Monarch Books has developed a large customer base due to its reader-friendly atmosphere and wide selection of books on all su 38
- A recent sales study indicated that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent over the past five years. Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants that specialize in seafood. Moreover, the majority of fam 57
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
---------------------
Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. //your argument 1
condition 2:
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. //your argument 3
conclusion:
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. //we can't guarantee that it will return to its previously high levels
----------------------
flaws:
Always remember to argue against the conclusion.
----------------------
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 475 350
No. of Characters: 2359 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.668 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.966 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.83 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 171 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.652 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.212 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.128 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'besides', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in addition', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248062015504 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.164728682171 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0484496124031 0.0836205057962 58% => OK
Adverbs: 0.031007751938 0.0520304965353 60% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0174418604651 0.0272364105082 64% => OK
Prepositions: 0.133720930233 0.125424944231 107% => OK
Participles: 0.0523255813953 0.0416121511921 126% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.90805815211 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0329457364341 0.026700313972 123% => OK
Particles: 0.00193798449612 0.001811407834 107% => OK
Determiners: 0.166666666667 0.113004496875 147% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0387596899225 0.0255425247493 152% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0135658914729 0.0127820249294 106% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2887.0 2731.13054187 106% => OK
No of words: 475.0 446.07635468 106% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07789473684 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.378947368421 0.378187486979 100% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.252631578947 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.187368421053 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.132631578947 0.135150697306 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90805815211 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 207.018472906 86% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.374736842105 0.469332199767 80% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 41.7069978227 52.1807786196 80% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 20.652173913 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.17727 57.7814097925 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.52173913 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.652173913 23.2022227129 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.652173913043 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 45.9153318078 51.9672348444 88% => OK
Elegance: 2.03636363636 1.8405768891 111% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.558745201894 0.441005458295 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.185641722716 0.135418324435 137% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.131270791156 0.0829849096947 158% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.660689160527 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.214310503346 0.147661913831 145% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.303989708155 0.193483328276 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.138328686582 0.0970749176394 142% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.666778999795 0.42659136922 156% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0828381767696 0.0774707102158 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.451619070383 0.312017818177 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0835652261896 0.0698173142475 120% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 62.5 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.75 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.