Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with the station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, several local businesses that used to run advertisements during our late-night news program have just cancelled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand the coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs.
The given argument is most likely based on the assumption that viewers as well as the advertizers would prefer the TV station to telecast more of local and weather news as compared to national news. The business manager is drawn to make this assumption because of the empirical evidence that advertizers have cancelled their contracts and a fraction of the viewers (the complainants) are not satisfied with the channel's local and weather news coverage. To establish the correctness of this argument, one needs to dig deeper to look for reasons that could give rise to the two happenings i.e. complaints about local and weather news coverage and cancellation of advertizing contracts.
Let's consider the complainants first. It must be noted by the business manager that the complainants form only a subset of the viewers of the channel and not the whole viewership. It is quite possible that a number of viewers would actually be more satisfied with the greater national news being covered. But since, positive feedback is seldom recieved as opposed to complaints, the opinion of those viewers is not visible to the business manager in the feedback they have received. So, the first evidence that is required is the opinion of the viewership about the likeability of the national news coverage.
Moreover, the nature of the complaint (about the local and weather news) needs to be delved into. The complainants might be more concerned about quality of the local news rather than the quantity (the amount of time devoted to it). Hence, the proposed solution i.e. restoring the time of local news to its former level might not help if the viewers are concerned about its quality. The quality of local news as percieved by the viewers comprises the second evidence to evaluate the argument.
Now coming to the advertizers, though the business manager is tempted to correlate the cancellation of advertizing contracts by local businesses to the complaints about the local news coverage, this is surely not the sole factor that could have led advertizers to commit this action. Since the advertizers are all local businesses, any regional economic trend could have affected their revenues in a negative way and as one of the austerity measures, they might have decided to cut down their advertizing expenses. Another possibility is the availability of better advertizing options like print media, social media, etc., which might be turning out to be more effective for advertizers. So, it needs to be ascertained that the cancellation of advertizing contracts is linked to the complaints by the local viewers and that it is not just a coincidence.
So, to concude the veracity of the argument, a multitude of investigations and evidences are needed from the extended viewership of the channel. In addition, the financial condition of local advertizers as well as their affinity to other modes of advertisement needs to be figured out before taking any step regarding the changes in the duration of the telecast.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...ncellation of advertizing contracts. Lets consider the complainants first. It mus...
^^^^
Line 7, column 396, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a negative way" with adverb for "negative"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...rend could have affected their revenues in a negative way and as one of the austerity measures, t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'second', 'so', 'well', 'in addition', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.249056603774 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.152830188679 0.15541462614 98% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0811320754717 0.0836205057962 97% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0509433962264 0.0520304965353 98% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0245283018868 0.0272364105082 90% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124528301887 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0641509433962 0.0416121511921 154% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.8566391812 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0452830188679 0.026700313972 170% => OK
Particles: 0.00566037735849 0.001811407834 312% => OK
Determiners: 0.141509433962 0.113004496875 125% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0188679245283 0.0255425247493 74% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00943396226415 0.0127820249294 74% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3007.0 2731.13054187 110% => OK
No of words: 493.0 446.07635468 111% => OK
Chars per words: 6.09939148073 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.3630831643 0.378187486979 96% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.306288032454 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.231237322515 0.208842608468 111% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.150101419878 0.135150697306 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8566391812 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438133874239 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.6242701754 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 24.65 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.3581881054 57.7814097925 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.35 141.986410481 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.65 23.2022227129 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.65 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 55.2788032454 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.9173553719 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.448723844921 0.441005458295 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.150311277652 0.135418324435 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0850443623289 0.0829849096947 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.671042760995 0.58762219726 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159009439867 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.232395984365 0.193483328276 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0847765126163 0.0970749176394 87% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.577750687927 0.42659136922 135% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0437177651789 0.0774707102158 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.34777281202 0.312017818177 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720971317159 0.0698173142475 103% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => 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: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 14.657635468 123% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.