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 article describes about the event that was held last year in the city of Grandview known as Grandview Symphony. It was observed that unlike previous years, this year registered rise in funding from private contributers as well as growth in the attendees of the concert. Though, these fact points towards the progress of the concert, before taking the decision regarding funding for future concert, the responsible personal may have to take a keen look to points of focus.
The author from his statements is seen to be assuming that the only reason for rise in attendance of the concert is the private funding that was revised on the following year. This is really a baseless and illogical assumption made by the author. The alternative points that can be held responsible for enhancing the fame of the concert are performance of extremely talented artists, fans of such kinds of concerts, ticket sold in very cheap prices, heavy advertisement of the concert or even attraction the magnificient infrastructure. These alternative possibilities won't allow the author to take any abrupt decisions on considering limited facts.
Further, the author tells us that some city commissioners argues on funding the symphony for next year. From the passage we get to know the reason behind there view can be the self-supportive nature shown by the concert in current year. The article tells us that the private contribution increased by 200 percent and attendance was also doubled, but this does not gives any kind of guarantee that same nature of growth may be observed in future years as well. Also, the articles tells of announcement of increasing ticket price for concert. This fact can not be ignored that announcement and actual application are two different things. Also, no details of increase in ticket price is given in following passage. So, before taking any kind of decision the authorities must take a look at all possible details available.
Moreover, earlier the passage mentions the doubling of the attendance of visitors to the concert. This does give a high-level picture of growth of popularity of concert, but alternative results may also be possible. It may be the case, that even after increased visitors, the organisers were not able to gain expected amount of profit. Also, same growth of may not be shown in future is also a possibility. Thus, before considering this fact as prime factor, it needs to be thoroughly evaluated.
Finally, the only advice before making any kind of decision is to undergo a detailed study of the situation. Based on the performance of only one year, making any kind of decision is nearly foolish approach. Thus, need some attentive approach and study, else sometimes it may have adverse affects on the Grandview Symphony concerts reputation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 461 350
No. of Characters: 2284 1500
No. of Different Words: 213 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.634 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.954 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.746 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 170 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.955 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.568 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.29 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 364, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'give'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: give
...nce was also doubled, but this does not gives any kind of guarantee that same nature ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 364, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'give'
Suggestion: give
...nce was also doubled, but this does not gives any kind of guarantee that same nature ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 713, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[4]
Message: “So , 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.
...et price is given in following passage. So, before taking any kind of decision the authori...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, look, may, moreover, really, regarding, so, thus, well, kind of, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2334.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07391304348 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.81476326705 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480434782609 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 739.8 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9172127474 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.090909091 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9090909091 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.5 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.224191651193 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673590122033 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0802880269071 0.0701772020484 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126667205652 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0780588329539 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.