Symphonies and public concerts are big events. It takes a dependable and dedicated team to organize these gatherings, which in turn solicits significant amount of funding in order to entertain the targeted audience. In the preceding article in the Grandview Beacon, the author highlights that the city symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget; citing the rising private fundings for the previous year, increased attendance in one of their events and raised ticket prices from the following year. Though the argument may have merit, it suffers from a lack of warranted evidences, questionable premises and assumptions, no legitmiate quantification of data and fails to answer numerous questions regarding the subject of the matter. Based solely on the thesis provided, the recommendation seems invalid.
The primary flaw in the argument is unsubstantiated evidences. Vague numbers have been offered by the author: 200% rise in private investments, increasing ticket prices from next year, attendance being doubled at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series. It is not possible to aver something reasonable from these numbers independently, so, context has to provided to extrapolate this data and infer. How significant is a 200% rise in private fundings in context of the budget of the symphony? Perhaps, the previous number is still so meagre to fulfill the cost requirements of the big event that even such a raise cannot fill the gap. Also, how crucial is the attendance in the concerts-in-the-park series in the overall picture of the event? Maybe, it is a charity event which gathered a large audience, thus, contributing nothing but voluntary donations in the chain of events.
Not only the lack of legitimate evidences, the argument is further weakened by the presence of vague assertions made by the author. Since, the private funding rose the previous year, the same trend is going to be the case in future, is an unreasonable assumption mad einherently. What was the motivation or the cause of surge in the private fundings? Was it a selfish move to improve the personal image and popularize one's business affiliations? These questions remain unanswered by the documented article. If this was the case, then the symphony cannot depend on these investors for funding, and therefore needs an alternate source for money.
Also, the high attendance has been linked to growing popularity of the event, and confused by the author to be one step further to indicate that the symphony is close to being self-sufficient. Correlation does not imply causation. Perhaps, heavy advertising in the previous edition garnered the attention of the audience, or it was the zeitgeist of the year that drove people to such extravaganza. Without establishing these open-ended doors of possibilities, to aver that the symphony is not depended on crowd funding is hasty.
In sum, the illogical thesis has a lot of holes in the analysis. To concvince the readers, the author must rephrase his argument, provide substantiation and quantification to his claims, justify his unerasonable assumptions, and further explicate the relation between his points and the conclusion draewn henceforth. Without amending the argument, he is likely to persuade a few readers.
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: Perhaps, the previous number is still so meagre to fulfill the cost requirements of the big event that even such a raise cannot fill the gap.
Error: meagre Suggestion: meager
Sentence: To concvince the readers, the author must rephrase his argument, provide substantiation and quantification to his claims, justify his unerasonable assumptions, and further explicate the relation between his points and the conclusion draewn henceforth.
Error: explicate Suggestion: No alternate word
Error: concvince Suggestion: convince
Error: unerasonable Suggestion: unreasonable
Error: draewn Suggestion: drawn
-----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 529 350
No. of Characters: 2744 1500
No. of Different Words: 271 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.796 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.187 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.004 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 166 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 122 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.16 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.306 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.28 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.458 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.037 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 364, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be elimina...
^^
Line 5, column 223, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
... the same trend is going to be the case in future, is an unreasonable assumption mad einh...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, may, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, thus, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2822.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.35483870968 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17231687685 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 281.0 204.123752495 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53320683112 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 883.8 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 73.9599242834 57.8364921388 128% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.88 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.08 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.08 5.70786347227 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.237667001943 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479562690626 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0773570787062 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116029837463 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0794878295176 0.0628817314937 126% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.26 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.