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."
The author in the above argument has made conclusion with that of number of the assumption. The author concludes that prohibiting skateboarding in the central plaza will bring rise in the business without any strong evidence. There many loop with that of the author conclusion. Thus the author makes number of the unproved assumption that hamper a reader's ability to believe the author conclusion. If the author provided more evidence to support the assumptions, than it would have been
much more effective.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the business has been decreased due to the popularity of the skateboarding. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. There could have been many other reason to the degradation of the business. For example, the cheap store might have been setup near the plaza which might be the major reason of the degradation. So to enforce the conclusion, the author should have presented strong evidence.
Moreover, argument readily claims that increase in the litter is due to the skateboarding. There might be different reason due to increase in the litter. For example, the authority in charge for the cleanliness might be irregular. Therefore, this is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between decrease of the business to that of the increase in the litter and vandalism. If the writer has provided more evidence than it would have been more convincing to the reader.
The author further relates that decrease in the business to that of the increase of the vandalism. This assumption made by author without any assumption as the increase in the vandalism might due to the dissatisfaction of the customer to that store in plaza. Thus the author again fails to give strong evidence to satisfy the conclusion.
To wrap up my discussion over this argument, I would like to say the above argument contains many flaws with that of the illogical assumption taken by the writer. There seems no major reason for the evidence. It would have better if writer provides strong evidence for its conclusion.
| 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 |
- Scientist and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 50
- Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may be proven false in the future 50
- Some people believe it is imperative for individuals living in developed nations to reduce their energy consumption and lead a more sustainable lifestyle, given the evidence for global climate change. Others believe that such drastic lifestyle changes are 50
- "Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many s 50
- Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted, since it may be proven false in the future. 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun loop seems to be countable; consider using: 'many loops'.
Suggestion: many loops
...ness without any strong evidence. There many loop with that of the author conclusion. Thu...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 279, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...oop with that of the author conclusion. Thus the author makes number of the unproved...
^^^^
Line 1, column 349, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'readers'' or 'reader's'?
Suggestion: readers'; reader's
...f the unproved assumption that hamper a readers ability to believe the author conclusio...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 487, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...the assumptions, than it would have been much more effective. First of all, th...
^^^
Line 2, column 22, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... would have been much more effective. First of all, the argument readily assum...
^^^
Line 4, column 414, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...e increase in the litter and vandalism. If the writer has provided more evidence t...
^^
Line 5, column 259, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...of the customer to that store in plaza. Thus the author again fails to give strong e...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'if', 'moreover', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'for example', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.232804232804 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.148148148148 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0820105820106 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.037037037037 0.0520304965353 71% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0185185185185 0.0272364105082 68% => OK
Prepositions: 0.137566137566 0.125424944231 110% => OK
Participles: 0.037037037037 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78241348109 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.042328042328 0.026700313972 159% => OK
Particles: 0.0026455026455 0.001811407834 146% => OK
Determiners: 0.171957671958 0.113004496875 152% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.031746031746 0.0255425247493 124% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0026455026455 0.0127820249294 21% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2109.0 2731.13054187 77% => OK
No of words: 349.0 446.07635468 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.04297994269 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.352435530086 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.263610315186 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.206303724928 0.208842608468 99% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.12893982808 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78241348109 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 207.018472906 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.41547277937 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 41.8897330279 52.1807786196 80% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 16.619047619 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.3575092756 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.428571429 141.986410481 71% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.619047619 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.380952380952 0.724660767414 53% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 3.58251231527 195% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 42.9800791377 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 2.0 1.8405768891 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.516735616208 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.155934263402 0.135418324435 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.114849571088 0.0829849096947 138% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.645695306172 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.177827065638 0.147661913831 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.24517215973 0.193483328276 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.115514864559 0.0970749176394 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.330053957231 0.42659136922 77% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.266221454121 0.0774707102158 344% => No any connections among paragraphs
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321984815175 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.164705616671 0.0698173142475 236% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.