In order for any work of art — for example, a film, a novel, a poem, or a song — to have merit, it must be understandable to most people.
The author recommends to hire more experinced journalists and fire younger, less experinced reporters to increase the readership. This recommendation is mostly based on two surveys done with gap of three years. Before considering the recommendation few questions have to be answered. Was survey conducted by reliable source? Was sample space considered for both surveys same? was population of the city constant in three years? Even if survey is accepted to be valid, proof is required to assert that younger reporters didn't have any part in the success.
First, author mentions about surveys, in order for the survey to be accurate sample space has to selected scientifically. Second survey which was done after three years should have sample space very similar to first one. Else, most of the people in the first survey may not be liking the contents whereas, large majority of people in the second group were liking the contents. This results in biased survey outcomes and one cannot conclude the good ratings are really because of improved content quality based on the survey.
Secondly, author states 13% increase in the subscribers. This may be just due to increase in population group which reads newspaper. Three years ago there might have been a big population chunk say between age 12 to 15, this chunk would be between age 15 to 18 after three years. If mjority of these people subscribe to newspaper irrespective of contents, 13% increase cannot be genuinely due to increased quality of writing.
Author totally disregards the work of young reporters. Even if we consider young reporter's content to be subpar, there is a chance that they would have come up with atleast one unprecedented story which, gave huge publicity to the newspaper. This might have contributed to increased subscribers base.
Inorder to implement the recommendation, managing editor of the newspaper has to find correct answers to the questions discussed above and evaluate each outcome carefully to make the decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 212, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Before” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...o surveys done with gap of three years. Before considering the recommendation few ques...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 377, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Was
...space considered for both surveys same? was population of the city constant in thre...
^^^
Line 1, column 520, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...quired to assert that younger reporters didnt have any part in the success. First,...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 275, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... the people in the first survey may not be liking the contents whereas, large majority of...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 352, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... majority of people in the second group were liking the contents. This results in biased su...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, whereas, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 14.8657303371 20% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 33.0505617978 30% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1691.0 2235.4752809 76% => OK
No of words: 325.0 442.535393258 73% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20307692308 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.24591054749 4.55969084622 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76144203817 2.79657885939 99% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 215.323595506 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56 0.4932671777 114% => OK
syllable_count: 522.0 704.065955056 74% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 47.5603130719 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.0 118.986275619 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.1052631579 23.4991977007 73% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.42105263158 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.124660354111 0.243740707755 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0404875862011 0.0831039109588 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0380840001757 0.0758088955206 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0628930976867 0.150359130593 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0358487001507 0.0667264976115 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.1392134831 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.8420337079 111% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.1743820225 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 81.0 100.480337079 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 11.8971910112 50% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6
---------------------
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.