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 claims that the decrease in number of Central Plaza store users is due to the increase in the number of skateboard users. Stated this way, the argument distorts the view of the situation by manipulating facts and providing weak evidences. To justify the recommendation, the author notes that there has been an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism in the plaza after the rise in the popularity of skateboarding. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that decrease in the number of customers of the store is because of the increase in the number of skateboarders. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. There could be several other factors responsible for the decline in shoppers. For example, people might simply not prefer buying items from that store because of the reduced quality. There might have been a new store that opened up with products of new brands that people are excited to try out. Or there might have been a change in the kind of products that the store sells because of which people are less inclined to buy from that store anymore. If that is the case, the suggested recommendation would make no difference to the number of customers of the store.
The argument readily attributes litter and vandalism to the skateboarder users. This reflects poor judgment as the author is stereotyping the skateboarders. Several other people could be reason for vandalism and litter in the store. For instance, the litter could be by the regular customers(non-skateboarders) or even the store staff. Every store should have CCTV cameras installed for situations precisely like this. The store owner could check the footages to know who exactly is responsible for the litter. If the videos prove that the customers or staff are the culprits, then there would no use in prohibiting skateboarding in the hope of increasing the customers. That would, in fact, lose the skateboarder shoppers who are probably more loyal customers of the store.
Finally, the owner fails to consider the possibility of the store being located in an inaccessible part of the city. If a new store opened up in a prime location, people might find it more convenient to walk down their street for their daily groceries than drive a longer way to Central Plaza. The store owner should have been mindful of the store location as it is one of the key factors affecting customers’ convenience. If location is the reason that some customers stopped going to Central Plaza, then skateboarders have nothing to do with the decrease in the number of shoppers. In that case, the recommendation of prohibiting skateboarding is impertinent.
In conclusion, the store owner’s argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the owner must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by observing the footages of the store or a detailed analysis of the kind and quality of goods sold in the store. Finally, it would be necessary to consider all the relevant factors that play a role in better evaluation a recommendation. Without this kind of knowledge, the recommendation remains unsupported and futile.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-15 | savikx | 77 | view |
| 2020-01-06 | stevewang1007 | 66 | view |
| 2019-12-23 | Pranjil | 75 | view |
| 2019-12-05 | sagar2052 | 69 | view |
| 2019-12-04 | Md. Kawsar Ahmed | 46 | view |
- Some people believe that college students should consider only their own talents and interests when choosing a field of study. Others believe that college students should base their choice of a field of study on the availability of jobs in that field. 58
- Some people believe that competition for high grades motivates students to excel in the classroom. Others believe that such competition seriously limits the quality of real learning. 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 75
- Woven baskets characterized by a particular distinctive pattern have previously been found only in the immediate vicinity of the prehistoric village of Palea and therefore were believed to have been made only by the Palean people. Recently, however, archa 55
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. need to argue:
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: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 546 350
No. of Characters: 2717 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.834 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.976 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.957 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 144 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.828 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.41 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.517 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.423 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 562, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...t for the author's recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered incomple...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, hence, however, if, so, then, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2797.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 546.0 441.139720559 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12271062271 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83390555256 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09561791891 2.78398813304 111% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441391941392 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 882.0 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.6680322594 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.4482758621 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.8275862069 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.24137931034 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.223855367433 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.061613610648 0.0743258471296 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066300344544 0.0701772020484 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134308063693 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0527267020155 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => 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: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.06 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.