shsamyam
Aug 8, 2015
Writing Feedback / Shopkeepers vs skateboarders issue - response letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner. [2]
Hello, everyone! New member, first post here! I am preparing for the GRE test to be given in the first week of November. Your constructive feedback is highly welcome! :)
----------
Time taken: 30 minutes (no less, no more)
No. of words: 356 (only, I am afraid)
The author posits an erroneous, misleading conclusion, which lacks a proper causal analysis of the issue, on whether the increase in the number of skateboarders is indeed the reason why there has been a decrease in the number of shoppers.
The author puts that there has been an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism in the area. However, it is not made clear on whether the skateboard users are responsible for the deeds. Moreover, there lacks a reason to say that littering and vandalism are the reasons that invited the diminution in the number of shoppers. Possibly, the shopkeepers themselves and their ineffective ways to market their products are the reasons for the decrease in their customers.
Furthermore, if the littering and vandalism were indeed done by the skateboard users, then there are other better, alternative options to placate this problem, rather than to disallow skateboarding there; for example, through the implementation of stringent rules against making the streets dirty, or employing cleaners to keep the vicinity clean.
Another limitation with the argument is the possibility of anachronism while postulating the argument. Perhaps it was due to the decrease in the number of shoppers that made the vicinity a bit less crowded, and therefore the skateboard users chose the place to follow their activity with fervor, without being irked by those passing by. In this way, perhaps the decrease in shoppers was precedence to the arrival of the skateboarding practice, instead of the opposite. Hence, this question needs to be dealt with before jumping to the conclusion.
Moreover, if skateboarding would be prohibited, then it might again be detrimental to the shopkeepers' business, because the skateboard users may also be among their buyers. Waving them off means even lesser people around. The argument utterly lacks the data or the observational notes to support the fact that the skateboard users do not make up a significant portion of the sustaining buyers of the shops.
Therefore, the above assertion of the author not only lacks a proper research but also is misleading because it is devoid of proper reasons backing the claim to validate it.
Hello, everyone! New member, first post here! I am preparing for the GRE test to be given in the first week of November. Your constructive feedback is highly welcome! :)
----------
Time taken: 30 minutes (no less, no more)
No. of words: 356 (only, I am afraid)
The author posits an erroneous, misleading conclusion, which lacks a proper causal analysis of the issue, on whether the increase in the number of skateboarders is indeed the reason why there has been a decrease in the number of shoppers.
The author puts that there has been an increase in the amount of litter and vandalism in the area. However, it is not made clear on whether the skateboard users are responsible for the deeds. Moreover, there lacks a reason to say that littering and vandalism are the reasons that invited the diminution in the number of shoppers. Possibly, the shopkeepers themselves and their ineffective ways to market their products are the reasons for the decrease in their customers.
Furthermore, if the littering and vandalism were indeed done by the skateboard users, then there are other better, alternative options to placate this problem, rather than to disallow skateboarding there; for example, through the implementation of stringent rules against making the streets dirty, or employing cleaners to keep the vicinity clean.
Another limitation with the argument is the possibility of anachronism while postulating the argument. Perhaps it was due to the decrease in the number of shoppers that made the vicinity a bit less crowded, and therefore the skateboard users chose the place to follow their activity with fervor, without being irked by those passing by. In this way, perhaps the decrease in shoppers was precedence to the arrival of the skateboarding practice, instead of the opposite. Hence, this question needs to be dealt with before jumping to the conclusion.
Moreover, if skateboarding would be prohibited, then it might again be detrimental to the shopkeepers' business, because the skateboard users may also be among their buyers. Waving them off means even lesser people around. The argument utterly lacks the data or the observational notes to support the fact that the skateboard users do not make up a significant portion of the sustaining buyers of the shops.
Therefore, the above assertion of the author not only lacks a proper research but also is misleading because it is devoid of proper reasons backing the claim to validate it.
