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 stated argument is flawed due to numerous reasons. Authors are relating the decreasing popularity of shopping to the increasing popularity of skateboard. Abatement in shopping could be due various reason. People's ability to spend might not remain the same as two years before. Also, there is not clearly mentioned people stopped shopping just because they spend time in skateboarding. Before giving conclusion authors have mentioned about vandalism but there is not enough evidence to support business is hurting due to vandalism. Thus, banning skateboarding will flourish the business as same before this conclusion is not right.
Firstly, in the argument they are saying the numbers of shoppers have reduced while popularity of skateboarding is expanding. This comparison is wrong. There might be a recession in the economy which might result in people's spending ability to lessen. Also, the people's ability to spend remained just the same but the prices of the products might be higher than before maybe because of that people are reluctant to shopping.
Moreover there is no clear indication that people who stopped shopping are skateboarding. There is a possibility that, popularity of skateboarding increased among new people who never liked shopping. Also, skateboarding might be famous among new age of people who did not used to shop before. Thus making the popularity of skateboarding up surging.
Furthermore authors have said about litter and vandalism throughout the plaza but no implication of who are doing that. It could be skateboarders or maybe other groups. In addition to, it is also not bolstered that people stopped shopping due to vandalism and litter.
In conclusion there is not proper evidence to support that the skateboarding is the reason behind decreasing numbers of shoppers. Thus, sanctioning the prohibition of skateboarding will not produce the desired result of business at<span class="hiddenSuggestion" pre="at "></span> high levels as before.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-13 | Anish Sapkota | 77 | view |
| 2023-04-06 | sijan | 53 | view |
| 2023-01-26 | ljh5034 | 78 | view |
| 2022-09-25 | ctoluwasedaniel | 68 | view |
| 2022-06-23 | sag15 | 72 | view |
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?At universities and colleges, sports and social activities are just as important as classes and libraries and should receive equal financial support.Use specific reasons and examples to support your an 73
- No field of study can advance significantly unless it incorporates knowledge and experience from outside that field. 50
- In the United States, employees typically work five days a week for eight hours each day. However, many employees want to work a four-day week and are willing to accept less pay in order to do so. A mandatory policy requiring companies to offer their empl 71
- 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 63
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed. 66
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 20 15
No. of Words: 310 350
No. of Characters: 1637 1500
No. of Different Words: 143 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.196 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.281 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.935 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 129 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 96 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 70 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.136 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.082 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 263, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...s spending ability to lessen. Also, the peoples ability to spend remained just the same...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...people are reluctant to shopping. Moreover there is no clear indication that peopl...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Furthermore,
...rity of skateboarding up surging. Furthermore authors have said about litter and vand...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, may, moreover, so, thus, while, in addition, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 12.0 28.8173652695 42% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1717.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 307.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.59283387622 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.18585898806 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.39509323992 2.78398813304 122% => OK
Unique words: 145.0 204.123752495 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.472312703583 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 525.6 705.55239521 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.9975609031 57.8364921388 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 85.85 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.35 23.324526521 66% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.9 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146575364831 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0516753574632 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055178347121 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0813672269053 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0264979520015 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 47.79 48.3550499002 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.55 12.5979740519 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => 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.