asdfasdf
The business manager of the television station argues for a restoration of the time allotted for weather and local news to the previous levels and claims that the loss of advertisement income and the complaints received from the viewers stem from the reduced time allotment for the same. While this could be the case, various evidences are required to decide the merit of the argument.
The first claim the author puts forward is that, after reduction of time for local news and weather news, the station saw that majority of the complaints received from the viewers where regarding coverage of the local and whether news. The term 'most' is vague and does not give a clear picture of the perceived consumer discontent. If the station only received four complaints and three of them were regarding the local news and weather coverage, then it misrepresent the opinion of the viewer population. Even if we assume that this is not the case and majority of the viewers were actually dissatisfied with the programme, we cannot conclude that the reason is a reduced time. The customers could well be dissastisfied about the content of the local news. The local news covered could be irrelevant and the weather predictions be erroneous and in disagreement with official sources. It could also be the poor quality of people handling the specific programmes-if the people who handled them earlier were transferred to national news. So evidence suggesting that the complaints' root lies in the reduced time are required to evaluate the argument. Along with this it might be the poor quality of the national news which
Even if the local and weather news' keeps up in quality, the loss of advertisement suffered cannot be directly related to the reduced time because, it could be due to a myriad of other reasons such as the the station as a whole losing the viewer rating, or the change in advertisement policies of the local business. If the viewers were swayed by any other station, it is reasonable to think advertisers will no more want to advertise with the station regardless of how it schedules the programmes. Also a change in policy of advertising, or in general policy altogether, of the business could result in them deciding to cancel advertisement contracts with the channel and instead pursue other marketing strategies or to rely on print media for advertisement.
The manager in concluding the argument claims that the restoration of increased time for local news will see reduced complaints and increased advertisement income. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that nothing has changed over a year as to the television viewing habits of the people and policies of the local businesses. Such a prediction also ignores the possibilities of attracting more advertisements and viewership by improving quality of the programmes offered and without the specific evidences discussed above the suggestion, if accepted, may be found to serve no good for the station.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 455, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'misrepresents'?
Suggestion: misrepresents
...ocal news and weather coverage, then it misrepresent the opinion of the viewer population. E...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ue to a myriad of other reasons such as the the station as a whole losing the viewer ra...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 201, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ue to a myriad of other reasons such as the the station as a whole losing the viewer ra...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 499, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ess of how it schedules the programmes. Also a change in policy of advertising, or i...
^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'well', 'while', 'as to', 'in general', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.238549618321 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.146946564885 0.15541462614 95% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0954198473282 0.0836205057962 114% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0419847328244 0.0520304965353 81% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0209923664122 0.0272364105082 77% => OK
Prepositions: 0.146946564885 0.125424944231 117% => OK
Participles: 0.0496183206107 0.0416121511921 119% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86324824078 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0229007633588 0.026700313972 86% => OK
Particles: 0.00190839694656 0.001811407834 105% => OK
Determiners: 0.152671755725 0.113004496875 135% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0229007633588 0.0255425247493 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00763358778626 0.0127820249294 60% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2980.0 2731.13054187 109% => OK
No of words: 493.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04462474645 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.352941176471 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.298174442191 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.204868154158 0.208842608468 98% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135902636917 0.135150697306 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86324824078 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 207.018472906 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446247464503 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 50.6850818356 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 30.8125 23.2022227129 133% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.7859009472 57.7814097925 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 186.25 141.986410481 131% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8125 23.2022227129 133% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8125 0.724660767414 112% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 60.6299442191 51.9672348444 117% => OK
Elegance: 2.07272727273 1.8405768891 113% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0 0.441005458295 0% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.152651909016 0.135418324435 113% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0466127925837 0.0829849096947 56% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.693267530163 0.58762219726 118% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.111163800757 0.147661913831 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0 0.193483328276 0% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0970749176394 0% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.675645573971 0.42659136922 158% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.069340164887 0.0774707102158 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0 0.312017818177 0% => The content is off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0 0.0698173142475 0% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.