In the memo, the committee from Grandview Symphony has appointed a well-known city conductor with the assumption that he will be beneficial for attracting high-profile guest musicians to perform for their concert and hoping they can achieve profitable revenue by increasing their ticket price. However, the author is making numerous unwarranted assumptions before concluding.
Firstly, the Grandview Symphony was funded by the government from a city a decade ago, this tells us that the institution was new to the industry and was developing. The author is not giving information about how it performed in the past. If it was popular, there was no need to appoint the conductor, if it was not popular, then there could be a scenario where the majority of the audience from the city was not interested in music. Thus, if the author is not giving more information regarding that, this argument does not hold any water.
Moreover, the argument says that Grandview Symphony has appointed a well-known conductor to attract high profile musicians to perform for their program. This increased the number of audience attending their concert. The author is not telling us about the situation of low profile musicians. We should know whether the concert is appointing both high- and low-profile musicians. If the concert is firing the low-profile musicians just to make some space for high profile musicians, then the concert is harming the talent of new upcoming musicians. Again the author is not considering these facts.
Lastly, the Grandview Symphony is planning to increase its ticket price just because there was an increase in the number of the audience attending their concert. They are not telling us whether this trend will stay constant or not. And there could be a possibility where a certain group of audience is not willing to pay such exorbitant amount of money for attending the concert. This would further weaken their claim. And also they are planning to rely on their increased unreliable revenue without considering constant funding from the government. Without in-depth analysis, their claim is seriously flawed.
In conclusion, as of now the argument is considerably flawed because of unwarranted assumptions by the author. If the author can give more explanation on this, only then it can be considered.
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n this, only then it can be considered.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1948.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20855614973 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81748664675 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478609625668 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => 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
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.5484103838 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186735733515 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525605865166 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854194126213 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107057215404 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0755314433818 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 192, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...n this, only then it can be considered.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, moreover, regarding, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1948.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20855614973 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81748664675 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.478609625668 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => 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
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.5484103838 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.4 119.503703932 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.186735733515 0.218282227539 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0525605865166 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0854194126213 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107057215404 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0755314433818 0.0628817314937 120% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 82.0 98.500998004 83% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.