The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville.
"Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productions. In spite of increased advertising, we are attracting fewer and fewer people to our shows, causing our profits to decrease significantly. We must take action to attract new audience members. The best way to do so is by instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program this summer. Two years ago the nearby Avon Repertory Company started a 'Free Plays in the Park' program, and its profits have increased 10 percent since then. If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too."
The author claims that starting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, profits will increase. Stated this way, the argument fails to consider several key points, shreds of evidence, circumstances, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. Moreover, the author provides instances with poor reasoning and inappropriate assumptions. After prim analysis of the author's argument, it can be seen that the author provides shreds of evidence which do not support the argument to a greater extent. Thus, it can be said that the argument is incomplete and improper.
Firstly, the author provides some statistics that show a decrease in the audience in last ten years. This is a great thing but the author does not do any further investigation on why this thing is happening. One of the reasons might be that the people would have lost interest in the show presented at the theatre. Moreover, it might be the case that people find it difficult to get to the theatre because of the theatre not being centrally located. So basically, there might be various reasons behind people not attending the show. The author neglects this fact. As a result, it is not just marketing or advertisement but the main problem might lie in other fields like people's interest as discussed above.
Secondly, the author compares the theatre with Avon Company and study how that company formulates a strategy to attract the audience. But the flaw here is that the author should first go into depth about whether the other company's work relates to the theatre's work, what the other company is? when was it started? why is the company carrying out such programs in the park? The main view behind all this would be to get an insight of what the other company is up to. If the answer to all the questions gives a satisfactory solution as well as relates to theatre's situation then only the solution should be adopted.
Thirdly, the author should check into the scripts for the show. This is because, it might be the case that people find the show repeated, monotonous, boring, etc. Furthermore, the characters played by the people might not depict what actually had happened in the past because of poor acting or script. And also, the way people play the role might be inappropriate. Altogether, the situation has multiple viewpoints and thus, it creates a controversial situation. In order to overcome this, hosting a program in the park is not the best option. Rather there are other methods related to statistics that might help in a better way.
In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To support further, the author can provide a better or more concrete shred of evidence, perhaps by undertaking a detailed survey of the topic. Finally, the author can assess the argument in a better way by going into the depth and asking the questions like how, why, when to the topic of "If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too."
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
If we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program, we can predict that our profits will increase, too.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 508 350
No. of Characters: 2388 1500
No. of Different Words: 234 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.748 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.701 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.557 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 129 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.32 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.295 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.64 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.296 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.497 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.088 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 355, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...assumptions. After prim analysis of the authors argument, it can be seen that the autho...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 294, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: When
...eatres work, what the other company is? when was it started? why is the company carr...
^^^^
Line 5, column 315, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Why
... other company is? when was it started? why is the company carrying out such progra...
^^^
Line 7, column 545, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Rather,
...ram in the park is not the best option. Rather there are other methods related to stat...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, in conclusion, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 21.0 12.9520958084 162% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2470.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 508.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.86220472441 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66038336622 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.484251968504 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 741.6 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.9987516117 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 88.2142857143 119.503703932 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.1428571429 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.96428571429 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.0713534535332 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0183812644222 0.0743258471296 25% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0271877660038 0.0701772020484 39% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0395879990212 0.128457276422 31% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0233402827547 0.0628817314937 37% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.3799401198 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.61 12.5979740519 84% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.