The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumptions that the symphony can be self supporting, rendering its main conclusion, that city funding for Grandview symphony should be eliminated from next year’s budget.
Firstly, the argument’s use of “self-supporting” is very vague. What does it mean to be self-supporting? Does this mean that the symphony is profitable from all the ticket sales and after paying all of its workers? Or is the symphony able to run, at a loss, without city funding? Because we do not know this, we can’t assume that the symphony will be able to run for long after losing city funding. Had the argument stated that the symphony was profitable to an extent greater than the amount of city funding, then city funding most likely would not be needed anymore.
Furthermore, the argument assumes that because private contributions increased by 200% does not mean city funding is no longer needed. Without any concrete numbers, a 200% increase can be a substantial amount of money or very little compared to the amount the city offers. For example, in the previous year, private contributions were only $100, therefore this year, private contributions were $300 this year. Compared to city funding, which gives tens of thousands every year, increased private contributions will not make the symphony self-supporting.
Lastly, the argument claims without warrant that increasing the prices of tickets next year will increase sales. We cannot assume this correlation. For one, an increase too steep will deter customers from watching the symphony and may choose not to go or explore a cheaper option, such as a lower priced ticket at a rival symphony. Had the argument shown via a survey that customers would still patron the symphony after a price increase, then it would strengthen the argument. However, we cannot assume this information, which makes this argument not valid.
Because the argument makes server unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that city funding for grandview’s symphony should be eliminated from next year’s budget.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 345 350
No. of Characters: 1753 1500
No. of Different Words: 165 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.31 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.745 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 134 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 97 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.167 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.513 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.359 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.158 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, lastly, may, so, still, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 55.5748502994 52% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1846.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 345.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.35072463768 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3097767484 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.14713740565 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501449275362 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 52.6236638785 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.555555556 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1666666667 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.61111111111 5.70786347227 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.402312791531 0.218282227539 184% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.128611981663 0.0743258471296 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0824870312382 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.253263649642 0.128457276422 197% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0544866717082 0.0628817314937 87% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.