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 crux of the argument was that funding for the Grandview Symphony should be canceled because the symphony is self-supporting now as they increase their ticket prices and attendance was doubled. The argument based on unwarranted reasons and flawed for the following reasons.
Primarily, the author claimed that attendance and ticket pricing is both increased compared to the previous year. Even though the author does not provide the actual amount of money or crowd increased in recent concerts. It would have been possible that increment of price was not surfeit enough to become self-sufficient and need more private funding. Without the actual number, it would be unfeasible to cancel the funding.
The author also claimed that private funding increases by 200 percent. It might be possible that the number of contributors decreased comparing to the previous year. So, canceling from next year budget would be deletrious to the symphony. Also, the author does not provide how many years the funding increased to 200 percent. It would have been possible that in the present day the funding increased to 200 percent comparing to 12 years ago, so the increment would not have been enough.
The author never claimed that the private funding introduced because of the symphony had not enough money or never self-supporting. The funding provided may be because of marketing. So, now because of the unwarranted assumption, canceling the funding would be impractical.
The following argument was flawed and based on unwarranted reasons. The author also failed to provide any convincing data and sound reasoning to bolster his argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 260 350
No. of Characters: 1346 1500
No. of Different Words: 116 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.016 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.177 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.706 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 111 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 51 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 16.25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.24 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.438 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.37 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.37 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, may, so
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 24.0 55.5748502994 43% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1379.0 2260.96107784 61% => OK
No of words: 260.0 441.139720559 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30384615385 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01553427287 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77536446778 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 122.0 204.123752495 60% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.469230769231 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 409.5 705.55239521 58% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 16.0 22.8473053892 70% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.959807139 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 86.1875 119.503703932 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.25 23.324526521 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.125 5.70786347227 20% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.236189438913 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0832341369463 0.0743258471296 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.066349326701 0.0701772020484 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121771608416 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751286144858 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.24 48.3550499002 114% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.16 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.1389221557 75% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.