"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."
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 of the argument has made a request to the editor to lift the prohibition on skateboarding which was approved two years ago. Such a prohibition was a result of complains from city dwellers about skateboard users causing litter and vandalism. The city residents concluded that litter and vandalism were the reasons that kept visitors from coming to plaza. However now the author states that in past two years, number of visitors has risen even when litter and vandalism still exists. Based on this observation, the author advocates of lifting the ban on skateboarding as according to him, visitor number is unrelated to litter and vandalism created by skateboarders. Although the author's suggestion initially sounds logical, it is inherently flawed and lacks substantive evidence.
Firstly, the claim of author that the number of visitors in Central Plaza has risen in past two years by smaller number, is baseless and unsupported by concrete evidence. Whether there was a survey for reflecting this result? Whether such increase was temporary or constantly rising? Whether the number grew significantly or by a petty amount? These questions should have been answered and strong evidence to bolster the author's recommendation should have been presented. As the author fails in laying a foundation for his claim, his suggestion proves insufficient to make a cogent case.
Furthermore, the author presumptuously compares Central Plaza with Monroe Park, a place where the visitor number, he claims is unaffected by litter and vandalism. But the question of whether these two cities are comparable in terms of problem of litter and vandalism or the number of visitors, is left unanswered. For example, the possibility that Monroe Park being a large city with only a small portion of area tarnished by litter and vandalism cannot be denied. Also it may occur that the officials of Monroe Park have put in efforts to curb these problems by creating large theme parks, gardens, beautiful sceneries where people wish to visit. The problem of vandalism and litter lying in small portion of area would not be a matter of concern to most people in such case. Thus the author should have provided reasons for comparison of Central Plaza with Monroe Park. Simply juxtaposing these two cities does not serve to be useful for creating a sound case.
Lastly, the author fails to provide any solutions to current problems of Central Plaza. In fact, his suggestion intends to completely ignore litter and vandalism and still hope for increase in number of visitors. This is a preposterous recommendation as the problems that resulted in banning of skateboard have not been curbed. It may be possible that after lifting skateboard ban in city, the residents would again vote for its proscription. The author instead should have indicated ways to curb these problems and help visitor number increase along with maintaining skateboard permission in Central Park.
Thus the author’s recommendation proves unacceptable and is insubstantial. Author should have presented more relevant argument to buttress his stand along with new measures to curtail problems of litter and vandalism.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018-09-17 | martina211 | 29 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 285, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ase was temporary or constantly rising? Whether the number grew significantly or by a p...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 168, Rule ID: WHETHER[3]
Message: Wordiness: Shorten this phrase to the shortest possible suggestion.
Suggestion: whether; the question whether
...unaffected by litter and vandalism. But the question of whether these two cities are comparable in term...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 466, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
... litter and vandalism cannot be denied. Also it may occur that the officials of Monr...
^^^^
Line 5, column 778, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...of concern to most people in such case. Thus the author should have provided reasons...
^^^^
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: Thus,
...ateboard permission in Central Park. Thus the author’s recommendation proves unac...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'well', 'for example', 'in fact', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.2875 0.25644967241 112% => OK
Verbs: 0.173214285714 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0625 0.0836205057962 75% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0428571428571 0.0520304965353 82% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0178571428571 0.0272364105082 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.130357142857 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0642857142857 0.0416121511921 154% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87868243709 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0303571428571 0.026700313972 114% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0892857142857 0.113004496875 79% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0178571428571 0.0255425247493 70% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0107142857143 0.0127820249294 84% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3203.0 2731.13054187 117% => OK
No of words: 508.0 446.07635468 114% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30511811024 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.57801047555 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.423228346457 0.378187486979 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.297244094488 0.287650121315 103% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.212598425197 0.208842608468 102% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.145669291339 0.135150697306 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87868243709 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46062992126 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 53.1329131112 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 19.5384615385 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1253774985 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.192307692 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5384615385 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.615384615385 0.724660767414 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 49.2628709873 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 2.06106870229 1.8405768891 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.490851316534 0.441005458295 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0950362179876 0.135418324435 70% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0572074517464 0.0829849096947 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.483080701062 0.58762219726 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.129245225738 0.147661913831 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.176067287841 0.193483328276 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.106621338489 0.0970749176394 110% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.400334496736 0.42659136922 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0569994010438 0.0774707102158 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.325977182015 0.312017818177 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.125364477153 0.0698173142475 180% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.