The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level."
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.
The TV station is considering the restoration of the coverage of local and weather news. Due to the majority of complaints are about news coverage and the cancellation of contract from local companies ever since the national news coverage was started to grow. TV station hopes to increase their viewers and prevent any contract from losing.
However the argument is begging the question that most of the complaints are from different people. Since, as we know, there are differents sorts of ways to complain. Ways like telephones call, email, or writing letters.Especially email and letter can be anonymous. If most of the complaints are from the same person who is irritated each time when he or she is watching the news. He or she may send an anonymous complaint to the station every day. To clarify the credibility of complaints, the argument should give the number of people who dislike the news coverage.
Secondly, it is the argument assumption that the cancellation of advertising contract from local companies is due to the increasing national news coverage. There could be another competitive start-up TV station that appeals more local businesses to invest in it. Or perhaps it is the political attitude, which barely can be avoided from the national news reporting, upsets the local company. Until the argument can distinguish the relation between the local news and the revenue of the local company's revenue, it will be the assertive to make such assumption.
Last, it is a hasty decision that restoring the coverage of local and weather news can attracting more viewers. Although had it be true that there is a decreasing number of viewer due to the increasing coverage of national news, there will be no new viewers without any new appealing approach. The restoration of original news coverage can only compensate the mistake they made and recover the amount of original viewer.
In conclusion, the argument does nor convince me that the coverage of news has anything to do with their dealing with the local business and the number of viewers. To make such link, the argument should provide more data, like the exact number of viewer and the local company attitude toward the news coverage. Then the final decision of the TV station can be rationalized .
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...d prevent any contract from losing. However the argument is begging the question th...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 221, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Especially
...ephones call, email, or writing letters.Especially email and letter can be anonymous. If m...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 129, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...ttracting more viewers. Although had it be true that there is a decreasing number ...
^^
Line 9, column 373, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...on of the TV station can be rationalized .
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'in conclusion', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.257907542579 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.143552311436 0.15541462614 92% => OK
Adjectives: 0.102189781022 0.0836205057962 122% => OK
Adverbs: 0.021897810219 0.0520304965353 42% => Some adverbs wanted.
Pronouns: 0.036496350365 0.0272364105082 134% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.116788321168 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0340632603406 0.0416121511921 82% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75124643361 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.029197080292 0.026700313972 109% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12895377129 0.113004496875 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.029197080292 0.0255425247493 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00973236009732 0.0127820249294 76% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2282.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 379.0 446.07635468 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.02110817942 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41224685777 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.353562005277 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.306068601583 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.224274406332 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.118733509235 0.135150697306 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75124643361 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.467018469657 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 49.2118983474 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 19.9473684211 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.1590821838 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.105263158 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9473684211 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.473684210526 0.724660767414 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 50.5542285794 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 2.02409638554 1.8405768891 110% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.539463514898 0.441005458295 122% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.147781728387 0.135418324435 109% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0808188385203 0.0829849096947 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.615127753163 0.58762219726 105% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.189998825343 0.147661913831 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.25680989682 0.193483328276 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.12403411005 0.0970749176394 128% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.508662088731 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.00449222072005 0.0774707102158 6% => Paragraphs are so close to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.410395350643 0.312017818177 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0439470087006 0.0698173142475 63% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => 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: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.