In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that they watch
television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five
years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city’s art
museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that
supports public television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now
being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s art
museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds for supporting
the arts should be reallocated to public television
The argument is stating that some of the city's fund should be reallocated to public televisions programs as corporate funding that support public television is now being threatened with severe cuts. Reason for this argument is that cuts may impact the attendance at city's art museums because according to survey there is a similar percentage increase in number of viewers of visual arts programs on television and the number of people visiting the city's art museums in past five years, hence author is assuming that decrease in television viewers will impact attendance at city's art museum. Author of the argument has not provided any reason to substantiate the claim that there is direct correlation between people who are watching and people who are going to the museum. It might be the case that more people are watching visual arts program because of motivation after visiting the museum or nowadays there are no other good programs aired on the televison and there are no recreational activities except going to the museums.
First of all, author has not provided any data to affirm that increase in visual arts program led to increase in people attendance at the museum. It might be other way around, just because there is increase in percentage of people watching arts program and people visiting the museum, it cannot be concluded that there is correlation between these two increased percentage. So, author has to first include some questions in the survey about the reason for increased interest to extrapolate why more people are watching visual arts and why more people are visiting the museum. Without this data this claim is dubious and not persuasive.
Secondly, increased attendance at city's museum might have caused increased percentage of people watching visual arts program. Usually, after seeing some arts works people get motivated to learn more about it and their interest in that particular field is increased and because of this reason there is increased percentage of people who are watching the arts programs. So, if city decides to allocate funds from arts to public television then it might impact the number of people visiting the museum as decreased funds might lead to closing of some museums or their facilities, hence less people visting the museum. This suggestion of allocating funds to public television will decrease people attendace at museums instead of increasing it.
Thirdly, this survey doesn't list data about each year. It might be the case that this increased percentage is just a short lived hype because of some new artwork in the museum and some famous actress program being aired. So, author should look at granular data of this survey and also take into account the current situation such as is there any famous celebrity's program of visual arts being aired or is there any new famous painting that currenty came to city museum. Just looking at five years data and coming to a rossy conclusion is unfounded.
Hence, without taking into account all the different viewpoints, this claim is not warranted. Author should first try to find correlation between these two different increase in percentage of residents watching visual arts television and attendance of museum, should also look at more granular year wise data, and negative impact of reallocating city's fund for supporting the arts before coming to a sound and convincing conclusion.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 30, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
The argument is stating that some of the citys fund should be reallocated to pub...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 584, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...some museums or their facilities, hence less people visting the museum. This suggest...
^^^^
Line 7, column 22, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... increasing it. Thirdly, this survey doesnt list data about each year. It might be ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, hence, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, as to, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.6327345309 163% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 77.0 55.5748502994 139% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2850.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 556.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12589928058 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85588840946 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54284745603 2.78398813304 91% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.36690647482 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 889.2 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 30.0 22.8473053892 131% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 90.0922709446 57.8364921388 156% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.333333333 119.503703932 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 30.8888888889 23.324526521 132% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.94444444444 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.18075931107 0.218282227539 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0724418524133 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0516078821868 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.12274420444 0.128457276422 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424596850616 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.03 48.3550499002 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.0 12.197005988 123% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.07 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.85 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.0 11.1389221557 126% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.9071856287 160% => 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.