The argument makes a reccomendation to allocate less time to weather and local news and more time to national news coverage in order to reverse the loss in revenue and the decline in the number of viewers experienced during the past year, which is believed to have stemmed from devoting more time to weather and local news coverage.
The argument makes a reccomendation to allocate less time to weather and local news and more time to national news coverage in order to reverse the loss in revenue and the decline in the number of viewers experienced during the past year, which is believed to have stemmed from devoting more time to weather and local news coverage. This argument is flawed in various ways, among which three stand out the most.
First, the arguement does not quantify any of the assertions made, which makes it difficult for the reader to gauge the severity of the "problem." The argument informs that relatively less time was devoted to local news coverage during the past year. How much less? is it a few minutes or several hours? The same caveat holds for the number of complaints received, the number of advertisers who cancelled their contracts, and the loss in revenue. Without this data, one cannot judge, even if ture, whether the time "misallocation" has had a material impact to call for a new policy and/or budget allocation for that matter. For instance, if the company only experienced a $200k loss, which happens to be less than 0.5% less than the previous year or only observed a 5% loss in the number of viewers, the "problem" may not warrant an action as it may suggest a different issue. The arguement would have been stregthened had it provided more granular information about the magnitude of each of the facts stated.
Second, even if the data was quantified and a correlation was indeed observed, it does not necessarily entail a causation. Just because a downtrend in the number of viewers and revenue is observed, it does not necessarily mean that the relatively higher local news coverage has lead to it, rather this might have been merely a coincidence. One can think of many other reasons why this might have occured. For example, a new TV station may have entered the media industry during the past year, which outperformed the company's performance during the past year. Different news anchors may have been employed by the company during the past year, which might have deterred the regular viewers due to their relatively lackluster performance. The argument would have been stregthened had it provided the results of an array of studies to keep all varying variables fixed in order to understand the root cause.
Last but not least, the arguement does not provide details about the content of the complaints about the local news coverage. The complaints might have been only about the anchors, the duration of the different segments of the news show, the guests, or even the advertisements themselves.Without carefully analyzing the content and the origin of the complaints, one cannot assume that the more time allocated to local news coverage was the reason behind these complaints. The arguement would have been stronger if it had provided a summary of these complaints.
To sum up, the argument was found to be fallacious hence not convincing in making its final reccomendation to devote more time to national news coverage. This is primarily due to unfounded assumptions implicitly presumed to be true as detaield above.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 393, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'stand' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'stands'.
Suggestion: stands
...awed in various ways, among which three stand out the most. First, the arguement ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 277, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Is
...ge during the past year. How much less? is it a few minutes or several hours? The ...
^^
Line 3, column 1039, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... magnitude of each of the facts stated. Second, even if the data was quantified ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 289, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Without
..., or even the advertisements themselves.Without carefully analyzing the content and the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, if, may, second, so, then, for example, for instance, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2654.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03605313093 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96692166071 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453510436433 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 828.9 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 87.5504854355 57.8364921388 151% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.7 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.35 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.1 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.475519889483 0.218282227539 218% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.125588855397 0.0743258471296 169% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.190169233237 0.0701772020484 271% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.304168859763 0.128457276422 237% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.242554931452 0.0628817314937 386% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.61 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to improve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.