sameersrinivas90

Please rate my essay.... "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." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. The author's argument that business in Central plaza is reduced because of increase in popularity of skateboarding is flawed. The author not only uses ambiguous and vague words to make his conclusion, but also fails to draw relationship between increase in the amount of litter and vandalism to the popularity of skateboarding. To begin, the author's conclusion is largely based on the idea that all shop owners's business has dropped considerably because of skateboarding. This is based on the assumption that almost all shop owners's business has gone down. However, this assumption is unwarranted. The author uses certain vague and ambiguous words to draw his conclusion. He assumes that many store owners as all the store owners of the central plaza. The word many can be inferred in many ways. It could mean only few shop owners would have believed that their decrease in business is because of skateboarding, while others might have got different opinion. There are chances that it might be because of introduction of online shopping websites, for example. For author to evaluate the argument, he should have mentioned the definition of the word many in this context. Since the author does not provide clearer definition of the word many, it is impossible to arrive at his conclusion. Additionally, he also assumes that increase in litter and vandalism is because of skateboarding without providing any evidence to validate the same. There is no relationship between increase in popularity of skateboarding to the increase in the litter and vandalism in the author's argument. Increase in litter and vandalism could be because of many other factors such as increase in the amount of rural people to the city, there by to the central plaza etc. To make the argument stronger, the author should have established relationship between increase in the litters and vandalism and the increase in the popularity of skateboarding. Since the author fails to draw this relationship, his argument cannot be concluded. The argument could be strengthened if the author were to define the key terms. Also, the argument could be further strengthened if the author was able to draw relationship between increase in litter and vandalism to the increase in popularity of skateboarding. As it stands, however, in its current form the argument is flawed.

Hi Guys, Please vote my below essay: "Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting." The author's argument of having own set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting to raise the property values of Deerhaven is flawed. The author not only uses weak evidence which is 7 years old to support his argument, but also uses some vague and ambiguous terms to draw his conclusions. Furthermore, he focuses his attention only on the landscaping and painting of homes as solely responsible for raise of property values ignoring several other factors which will affect it. To begin, the conclusion is based largely on the perception that landscaping and painting of homes will alone add value to the properties. The author spends lots of time trying to demonstrate this. However, the authhor fails to consider several other factors responsible for raising property values. For example, properties which are near to hospitals, schools, colleges, cinema, market, bus stand, railway stations etc... are likely to have more value than the ones which are far away from these facilities. Additionally, some times properties which lie nearer to these facilities are rated high irrespective of its landscape and paintings. Since the author does not consider these points, it is impossible to say just by landscaping of the yards and house paintings, property values are going to increase. Furthermore, the author even uses some vague and ambiguous words in stating his argument. He does not provide any insight into the set of restrictions followed by the Brookville community for landscaping and paintings. Additionally, he also mentions we should adopt our own set of restrictions on landscaping and paintings without giving any hint on the restrictions to be followed. There are chances that Brookville community devised good plans like planting trees infront of every home, building parks, devising sanitary maintainences plan etc.. which definitely added value to its properties over years. However, the author not only des not mention restrictions followed by Broolville, but also states we should adopt certain restrictions without defining what those restrictions really are. Since the author does not provide any information on the restrictions followed by Brookville and the restrictions to be followed by Deerhaven, it is impossible to say following restrictions will add value to the property as the author concludes. The argument could be strengthened if the author provided information on the set of restrictions which he is planning to adopt. The argument could be further strengthened if the author were to consider all the factors responsible for an increase in the property value. As it stands, however, the argument in its current form is flawed.