skateboard users within the central plaza have caused a decrease in the sales of the stores in the plaza. a lot of littering is also observed. hence the city should prohibit skateboarding inside the plaza.
The argument is based on several factors which will be addressed in the following passages. Central Plaza store owner directly relates the downfall of its business to increase in the skateboard users in the plaza. It further relates the increase in litter and vandalism to the skateboard users. Another assumption which is quite absurd is that the store owner expects the business to reach high levels if skateboarding is prohibited. The overall argument raises a lot of questions which should have been addressed in the argument. These loopholes have made the argument in-effective.
Firstly, there could be several reasons behind the gradual decrease in the Central Plaza business such as the lack of desired products available in the store. There could have been a case of a duplicate product noticed in the store. The atmosphere within the store may well be daunting with low lights and immoral salesmen. Hundreds of reasons could result in the gradual downfall of a business and hence, the store owner should analyze the overall environment of the store before calumniating the skateboard users in the plaza. The store owner should set up an investigation team which looks into each and every detail of the store punctiliously in order to solve the most problematic aspect.
Secondly, the amount of litter and vandalism cannot be directly related or linked to the skateboard users as the proof of it's cause is not analyzed in the argument. People walking in the central plaza may well be the culprit. The argument doesn't provide any data to prove the littering and vandalism is caused by the skateboard users. The salesmen of the stores in the central plaza may also be investigated as they are the ones who stay in the plaza for the longest duration.
Further, the store owner wants the city to prohibit skateboarding in the plaza which is again a conclusion arrived at without prior investigation. They should instead find a way to prove it instead of slandering the skateboard users for their bad phase. Cameras should be installed and a notice stating that the area is under surveillance could well result in a drop of littering and a rise in the sales within the plaza. Furthermore, the actual culprit can also be caught and punished for causing the littering within the plaza. As far as the drop in sales is concerned, a thorough analysis or examination is required in order to reach such a conclusion.
Hence, the argument lacks depth as there are a lot of loopholes which should have been linked and addressed in the argument. Adding up, concluding at what should be done to increase the sales without proper evaluation of the store is absolutely bizarre. There could be tons of reasons for the downfall and the evaluation should begin by looking into the store in the first place.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-08-29 | maaz abdul moiz | 83 | view |
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weathe 42
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans to think for themselves will surely deteriorate 54
- An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p 23
- According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended super screen-produced movies than in any other year. And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific super screen movies a 29
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers. 33
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 474 350
No. of Characters: 2288 1500
No. of Different Words: 203 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.666 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.62 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 158 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.609 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.459 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.478 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 240, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...a may well be the culprit. The argument doesnt provide any data to prove the littering...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, well, such as, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2330.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 473.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92600422833 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66353547975 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68356906714 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.427061310782 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 735.3 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.7182086042 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.304347826 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5652173913 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86956521739 5.70786347227 85% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.426014800235 0.218282227539 195% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125543378663 0.0743258471296 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.084455802968 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.252287775314 0.128457276422 196% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0825871716148 0.0628817314937 131% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.