The following appeared as a letter to the editor from the owner of a skate shop in Central Plaza.
"Two years ago the city council voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has been only a small increase in the number of visitors to Central Plaza, and litter and vandalism are still problematic. Skateboarding is permitted in Monroe Park, however, and there is no problem with litter or vandalism there. In order to restore Central Plaza to its former glory, then, we recommend that the city lift its prohibition on skateboarding in the plaza."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author here recommends that in order to restore the former glory of Central Plaza, the prohibition on skateboarding in Central Plaza levied by the city council be called off. The author also presents various reasons for such a recommendation. However the argument is logically flawed and there are several factors which need to be considered before taking such a strong stand.
First, the author states that only prohibition of Skateboarding lead to the loss of glory of Central Plaza. But no statistics and buttressing evidence has been provided regarding the condition of the Plaza before the ban was put up. There is no evidence showing how the people of the city respond to Skateboarding, though many might be interested in welcoming such an activity in the Plaza, some might also refrain from coming to the Plaza if such hustle bustle takes place in the Plaza.
Also, the author states that since the ban there has only been a small increase in the number of visitors to Central, but one would clearly need statistics to support and believe such a claim. The term small increase is very vague and needs to be elaborated. Also, the level of litter and vandalism before and after the prohibition need to be presented. Not only does an activity like Skateboarding contribute to the glory of a place, but also other factors such as the location of the place, the ambience inside and many other things.
The argument mentions that in Monroe Park, however the skating is permitted, there is no problem of litter and vandalism there. What the argument fails to put forth is the difference in maintenance forces and staff at the Monroe Park and in Central Plaza. It might be the case that Monroe Park does get littered but they have a better and more efficient cleaning staff which ensures regular cleaning of the Park. If certain evidence is provided regarding the number and efficacy of the staff and other conditions of the two places, the argument will be strengthened.
Thus, although lifting off the ban on Skateboarding at Central Plaza might be a good idea, the argument presented by the author is subject to scrutiny and needs to be bolstered with evidence. The argument can be strengthened if it considers the number of people interested in participating in Skateboarding now, it provides details for the difference in the amount of litter, if any before and after the ban has been imposed, and evidence to report if there has been no change. Other probable reasons for the litter problem need to be put forward. Also a cogent link should be established between the glory of Central Plaza and Skateboarding. The argument, as stated, seems too far-fetched to recommend that ban be lifted off without catering to the above mentioned questions and reasoning.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 248, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ious reasons for such a recommendation. However the argument is logically flawed and th...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 323, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun might seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much might', 'a good deal of might'.
Suggestion: much might; a good deal of might
...e city respond to Skateboarding, though many might be interested in welcoming such an acti...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 549, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... litter problem need to be put forward. Also a cogent link should be established bet...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.253937007874 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.183070866142 0.15541462614 118% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0590551181102 0.0836205057962 71% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0472440944882 0.0520304965353 91% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00787401574803 0.0272364105082 29% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.120078740157 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0767716535433 0.0416121511921 184% => Less participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.72891812171 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0334645669291 0.026700313972 125% => OK
Particles: 0.00787401574803 0.001811407834 435% => OK
Determiners: 0.129921259843 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0157480314961 0.0255425247493 62% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00984251968504 0.0127820249294 77% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2778.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 470.0 446.07635468 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.91063829787 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.36170212766 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.253191489362 0.287650121315 88% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.172340425532 0.208842608468 83% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.102127659574 0.135150697306 76% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72891812171 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 207.018472906 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440425531915 0.469332199767 94% => OK
Word variations: 49.1774511225 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 24.7368421053 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2764450213 57.7814097925 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 146.210526316 141.986410481 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.7368421053 23.2022227129 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.526315789474 0.724660767414 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 50.0559910414 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.89256198347 1.8405768891 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.538737423748 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.12926395111 0.135418324435 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0668647321601 0.0829849096947 81% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.636556054332 0.58762219726 108% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.117279969842 0.147661913831 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.264193573791 0.193483328276 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0938165951108 0.0970749176394 97% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.557946776882 0.42659136922 131% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0246946233272 0.0774707102158 32% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.42455628533 0.312017818177 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0315956307378 0.0698173142475 45% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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 to cover all aspects.