The following appeared in a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony s inception ten years ago Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conduct

Essay topics:

The following appeared in a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony.
"The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony's inception ten years ago. Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, who has been able to attract high-profile guest musicians to perform with the symphony. Since then, private contributions to the symphony have doubled and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series has reached new highs. Now that the Grandview Symphony is an established success, it can raise ticket prices. Increased revenue from larger audiences and higher ticket prices will enable the symphony to succeed without funding from the city government."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

In this memo, The author argues that the Grandview Symphony was successful financially last year, the city government should not provide funding for the symphony. This memo seems to be plausible at first glance. However, the lack of specific evidence and critical information leads me to question the validity of this memo.

First, the author asserts that the new conductor who is internationally known can help to attract high-profile guest musicians. However, he does not provide any specific case about this. For example, he did not state the real names or the number of great guest musicians invited to the symphony after hiring the new conductor. To bolster his argument, the author needs to present the data about these.

Second, the author argues that the private contributions to the symphony have increased after hiring the new conductor. But there is no evidence of causal relationships between the private contributions and the new conductor. This increased private contributions might have been an aberration of last year caused by the economic boom of that area. In addition, if the initial contributions were a small total amount, the doubled contribution would not be enough compared to total annual funding from the city government.

In addition, the author stated the success of the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series. However, it could be possible that this success is an extraordinary case in the history of the symphony. Nobody could ensure the long-term success of the symphony based on this only one case. The author's opinion seems to make a hasty generalization. To validate the author's assertion, He has to show more long-term data about the attendance at the symphony's other concert except for the concerts-in-the-park series.

Lastly, the author claims that the symphony will succeed without the city government because the symphony can raise ticket prices. However, he did not present the exact ticket prices. If the rate of increase is negligible, it might not help to maintain the symphony substantially. In addition, if the revenue from larger audiences and higher ticket prices are too small compared to the total required budget of the symphony, the symphony would still need funding from the city government.

In conclusion, the author's argument has many flaws in the logic. To strengthen his assertion, he should provide more specific evidence such as the exact ticket price and revenue of the symphony, the total amount of annual funding from the city government, and some cases of attracting high-profile guests invited by the new conductor.

Votes
Average: 5.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 286, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mphony based on this only one case. The authors opinion seems to make a hasty generaliz...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 356, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...a hasty generalization. To validate the authors assertion, He has to show more long-ter...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... city government. In conclusion, the authors argument has many flaws in the logic. T...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, second, so, still, then, as to, except for, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2184.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 412.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.30097087379 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.50530610838 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9681756896 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470873786408 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 53.3555050333 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.2727272727 119.503703932 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7272727273 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.68181818182 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => 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: 0.25917601445 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746978491173 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0829947752026 0.0701772020484 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134298771267 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0626066214713 0.0628817314937 100% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.46 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.02 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 91.0 98.500998004 92% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2123 1500
No. of Different Words: 189 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.128 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.771 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.818 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.37 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.581 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.141 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5