The following appeared in an article in the Grandview Beacon.
"For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Given such developments, some city commissioners argue that the symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the Grandview Beacon article claims that because private funding and attendance in the last year has increased substantially at the Grandview Symphony, government funding is no longer needed for next year’s budget. While the argument may hold some merit, there are a number of unstated assumptions that need to be addressed. In order to determine the validity of the argument, three questions must be answered in order to decide whether funding should be eliminated. If the answers go against the author’s conclusion, then the argument is unwarranted and completely falls apart.
Firstly, the author assumes that private contributions made last year would continue to support future annual funds. However, we must question the amount of contributions made last year. Perhaps, the 200% increase by private donors was made for maintenance and cleaning, and not for the production of concerts and such materials. Additionally, the 200% increase could be an increase of 1,000 dollars rather than 1,000,000 dollars. On the other hand, we must also question whether the private contributors are going to continue to donate in the following years or solely for the last year. If contributors made their donations for one year only, then it would go against the argument that the funding would continue in the following year. Furthermore, if the answers support that the contributions were a small portion and made o by one-time donors, then it would weaken the argument. The author must provide substantial evidence that the donations are large enough to support the symphony in the following year and whether or not donors would continue to contribute.
Secondly, the author implies that an increase in attendance last year would support an increase in attendance in the following year. While this may be true, we must question why the attendance was large in the last year, which may answer attendance in the following year. Perhaps, the symphony had concerts that were held by musicians that rarely came to town and excited the greater population. Additionally, concerts may have had greater promotion that year that not only attracted the attention of the local community, but also people from other locations in the world who traveled to Grandview Symphony. If that were to be the case, then the author must support that the symphony would continue to attract a greater number of audiences. If concerts and advertisement was only unique that year and not the following, then it would fail to support the argument that people would continue to come. The author must provide evidence that people would come based on the type of concerts or just for general attendance. If not, then the argument is dubious.
Lastly, the author insinuates that an increase in price would continue to support the symphony. However, we must question the price of the tickets and whether people are able to afford the costs. Perhaps, the prices increased only by two dollars. If that were the case, then the increase in money wouldn’t be that much. Unless, the prices increased by one hundred dollars, then there would be a greater difference in prices and revenue. Additionally, if the prices increased by an exorbitant amount, we would have to question if people are able to afford it. If not, then it would reduce the amount of attendance at the symphony and revenue would decrease. Therefore, the author must provide evidence that indicted how much of the increase in prices were and whether people are able to afford the costs. If not, then the argument holds not water that increased prices would continue to auspice the symphony.
Based on the aforementioned assumptions in the argument, substantial evidence is needed to support the recommendation. If the author does not provide answers to the questions, such as relevant data that shows funds, attendance, and increased prices would continue to assist the symphony, then the argument falls apart that government funding should be suspended.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 31 15
No. of Words: 652 350
No. of Characters: 3263 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.053 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.005 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.629 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 248 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 190 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 131 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.032 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.032 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.71 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.332 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.332 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1016, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... the symphony in the following year and whether or not donors would continue to contribute. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, while, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 34.0 12.9520958084 263% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 25.0 13.6137724551 184% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 37.0 16.3942115768 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3351.0 2260.96107784 148% => OK
No of words: 651.0 441.139720559 148% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.14746543779 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.05120793913 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73303706111 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 229.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.351766513057 0.468620217663 75% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1017.9 705.55239521 144% => 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: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 13.0 2.70958083832 480% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.028814916 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.096774194 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.45161290323 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 8.20758483034 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.281531505837 0.218282227539 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0830805293908 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0922972855831 0.0701772020484 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168296562738 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0925385937331 0.0628817314937 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.42 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.