"The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony's inception ten years ago. Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, who has been able to attract high-profile guest musicians to perform with the symphony. Since then, private contributions to the symphony have doubled and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series has reached new highs. Now that the Grandview Symphony is an established success, it can raise ticket prices. Increased revenue from larger audiences and higher ticket prices will enable the symphony to succeed without funding from the city government."
The author of this argument claims that the city government should not provide annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. To support the recommendation, the author cites the following facts. (1) A new director of Symphony attracts high-profile guest musicians to perform with the Symphony. (2) Private contributions to the symphony have doubled, and more people come to the Symphony’s concert-in-the- park. (3) Symphony raises the cost of tickets, so its revenue will be increased. Scrutiny each of these facts, however, reveals none of them lend credible supports to the recommendation.
First, relies on the fact that the tickets of Symphony concerts will rise; the author infers that its revenue will increase. Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that increasing the cost of tickets decreases the number of attendance at the symphony’s concert because people cannot afford its tickets. In this way, contradiction the author claims the symphony cannot gain more revenue.
Second, a serious of problems with this argument arises from the scant statistical information. The author relies on the fact that private contributions to the symphony have doubled, so it never needs city government’s funding’s. Although, personal financial aids have increased, it is entirely possible it cannot be enough. In addition, the author does not provide information that aids are permanents. In short, since the argument relies on the limited information, I cannot take the author’s final conclusion seriously.
In the third place, the author claims that symphony has increased because in the last concert increased significantly. However, the author must consider others factors, which cause many people came to the last concert. In it possible, the last concert held in the summer, when people have spare time, so in the other seasons, few people tend to go to concerts. In addition, the lack of recreations facilities forces people to go to the concert, while people may find another alternative way for filling their time instead of going to the concert in the future. Without considering this possible scenario, the author cannot justifiably conclude that symphony's fans have increased.
In sum, the argument is not credible and therefore, unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more statistical information about their fan, and private financial aids. In order to evaluate the recommendation, it would be better to know about all possible factors, which increase the attendance last Symphony in-the-park-concert.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dible supports to the recommendation. First, relies on the fact that the ticke...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...'s final conclusion seriously. In the third place, the author claims that...
^^
Line 9, column 367, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ance last Symphony in-the-park-concert.
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'while', 'in addition', 'in short', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.259023354565 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.138004246285 0.15541462614 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0849256900212 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0445859872611 0.0520304965353 86% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0297239915074 0.0272364105082 109% => OK
Prepositions: 0.104033970276 0.125424944231 83% => OK
Participles: 0.0233545647558 0.0416121511921 56% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.19035875456 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Infinitives: 0.031847133758 0.026700313972 119% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.114649681529 0.113004496875 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0276008492569 0.0255425247493 108% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00849256900212 0.0127820249294 66% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2581.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 393.0 446.07635468 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.56743002545 6.12365571057 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.57801047555 97% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.447837150127 0.378187486979 118% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.338422391858 0.287650121315 118% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.259541984733 0.208842608468 124% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.150127226463 0.135150697306 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19035875456 2.79052419416 114% => OK
Unique words: 199.0 207.018472906 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506361323155 0.469332199767 108% => OK
Word variations: 55.3742834721 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 18.7142857143 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5276220762 57.7814097925 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.904761905 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7142857143 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.714285714286 0.724660767414 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 52.5565249 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.82 1.8405768891 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.462897818507 0.441005458295 105% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.12307671136 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0813675703736 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.610321841986 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.120365641977 0.147661913831 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.213300221626 0.193483328276 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0914523236248 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.506923931891 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0561591555986 0.0774707102158 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.336519916022 0.312017818177 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0945847376158 0.0698173142475 135% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => 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.