"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has

Essay topics:

"Two years ago the city voted to prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. They claimed that skateboard users were responsible for the litter and vandalism that were keeping other visitors from coming to the plaza. In the past two years, however, there has only been 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."

The argument about removing the limitation of skateboarding in the Central Plaza might be tenable at first glance. The author makes a valid argument, one that would be correct, if its premises were true. However, his conclusion relies on the assumptions for which there is no relevant evidence and it uses terms that lack the definition.

First, the author mentions the reasons on the limitation of the skateboarding was the vandalism created, while he doesn't illustrate the various aspects of that vandalism. What kind of problems did the skateboarders cause which prevented visitors from coming to the plaza? How does it cause those visitors to decide not to use the place? The answer to these questions makes a clear reason for that decisions and the issue in which if there is another way of decreasing the problems of the skateboarding instead of omitting it.

Second, the writer claims that removing the skateboarding haven't decreases the problems in the plaza and the visitors haven't increased. However, he doesn't make a strong correlation between the coming visitors to the plaza and its vandalism. May be, people have found better places for being there. May be, in two years, the other good traits of the plaza also be removed and caused visitors don't have past motivation to come there. Similarly, increasing the vandalism might be posed by the other changes in the plaza and the other plays permitted in two years.

Likewise, citing the lack of vandalism in Monroe Park as authorized place for skateboarding, the writer assumes that skateboarding cannot make the vandalism in the plaza either, while, he doesn't interpret and compare the situations of the two places. Perhaps, the visitors to the Monroe Parke are fewer than the plaza and the skateboarding can be played easily without posing any problems for other people. Suppose for example, the space of the park be so vast that various plays be defined across the land without any intersections with and disturbance for visitors.

After all, the argument appears to rely on the premises which haven't supported well. The argument doesn't consist of any explanations of the other uses of the plaza and the changes occurred in the two years. The author easily could be addressed these issues with depicting demographic, social, and economical situation of the visitors and about the physical location and the other uses of the plaza to make more cogent and convincing points on his conclusion

Votes
Average: 6.5 (6 votes)
This essay topic by users
Post date Users Rates Link to Content
2018-09-17 martina211 29 view
2018-03-05 amirbahman 89 view
2018-01-25 amirbahman 29 view
2018-01-14 amirbahman 29 view
2016-05-31 Sayali K 75 view
Essay Categories
Essays by user saharpouya :

Comments

removing the skateboarding haven't decreases the problems in the plaza and the visitors haven't increased.
removing the skateboarding hasn't decreased the problems in the plaza and the visitors haven't increased.

and the other plays permitted in two years.
and other plays are permitted in two years.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- OK

argument 3 -- OK

Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2008 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.85 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.671 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 135 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 73 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.206 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.778 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.35 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.568 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.134 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5