The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station.
"To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here after their retirement. We must make listeners of these new residents. We could switch to a music format tailored to their tastes, but a continuing decline in local sales of recorded music suggests limited interest in music. Instead we should change to a news and talk format, a form of radio that is increasingly popular in our area."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Manager of WWAC radio station asserts WWAC radio station should change the format as a news and a talk from current rock-music format so that radio station will increase number of listener. He adduces the evidence that cause of population growth occurred from people coming here after their retirement; this reason will give the idea that radio station should follow their taste. On the other hand, in local sales of recorded music showed that people lacked interest of music, he certainly has to change the format of radio station instead of music part. The argument seems logically sound at first glance, but there are unsubstantiated evidences that affect argument.
First of all, argument adduces that population growth will affect representative of listeners growth rate in this region. People coming here are not people who listen the radio station; moreover, they are not meant to be here to listen music. They came here because this region has generous rehabilitation or marvelous recreational activity. As argument explained above, people coming here are usually retired; they would have different interests. Therefore, there should be enough explanation why do retired people denotes representation of listener’s growth rate.
Secondly, local sales of recorded music did not represent why WWAC radio station should change their format. Local sales of recorded music explained that since there was decreasing rate of selling a music, radio station should change the new format. However, local sales of recorded music are different franchised store where they are not belong to radio station. This evidence lost their argument by not showing the statistics of their sales; in other words, they only showed “decline in local sales of recorded music” because they only showed that they lost their profit. Further, we as reader did not recognize what kind of music that local sales of recorded music is selling. This part will make a doubt why they lost their profit.
Last but least, the argument adduces that there is other radio station that is increasingly popular with format of news and interview. However, there is not so much relevant and representative evidence that if WWAC radio station change the format as similar as other radio station, they will gain more listeners. If WWAC radio station status is shown as beneficial after changing the format, then condition of changing format will be valid.
In closing, consider the flawed evidence that showed above, and change the argument correctly, the argument will have possible reasons that support the idea of having a new format including news and interview.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 150, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'peopled'.
Suggestion: peopled
...this region. People coming here are not people who listen the radio station; moreover,...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 340, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'belonged'.
Suggestion: belonged
...ent franchised store where they are not belong to radio station. This evidence lost th...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, as to, kind of, first of all, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 28.8173652695 132% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 16.3942115768 195% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2234.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30641330166 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5510158038 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.432304038005 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 693.9 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => 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: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.9568436766 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.578947368 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1578947368 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.21052631579 5.70786347227 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281231805428 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0994063700511 0.0743258471296 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815166886943 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163602665906 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0832053850412 0.0628817314937 132% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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: 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.