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.
The writer believes that increasing the tickets' price will be able to attract same higher number of music enthusiasts, as it is these days; therefore, he claims that in the days to come the Grandview Symphony will be self-reliant enough in its financial matters, and it can succeed without city government's funding. And in addition, he furnishes the success story of recent concerts-in-the-park series in an attempt to shore up his assertion: Grandview Symphony has a good and successful future, particularly in terms of its finance. The premises supplied by him might be true; clearly, however, on meticulous analysis, the argument is inadequate, because it is truly devoid of required amount of hard-facts and associated information, which is really necessary for a robust argument. As a result, the assumption - and the finally put forwarded conclusion too - sounds out-and-out skeptical. For this reason, before I accede to the argument, to be clear, I have following doubts.
Firstly, and probably most importantly, if we read between the lines a little, it becomes obvious that the writer assumes same higher number of music enthusiasts will be attracted even after doubling the ticket price, which sounds unjustifiable: there is no further explanation regarding the possible reaction of such visitors after the price hike. Number of people might have increased these days mainly for the cheap tickets and the service it provides. Therefore, in this context, after doubling the price, these visitors might stop attending its concert series and might go for searching more cheaper shows. Thus, in order to fortify his argument, the author ought to speak more on the relative prices of Grandview Symphony and its competitors; doing so will further support his claim.
Furthermore, it can be deduced from the memo that the author regards the "internationally known" conductor as the sole reason behind the success of the Grandview. Nevertheless, the success might also be due the effort of other staffs, and in addition, the Grandview might have established better management team and infrastructures, which might have contributed to its recent success. The memo speaks nothing in this regard, however. By explicating in this ball game, the author will be able to corroborate his claim.
To recapitulate, many specifics and details are yet to be discussed thoroughly regarding the argument of the author. The author should not assume that the Symphony will be able to attract equal number of music enthusiasts, even after the price hike. Further, the assumption that conductor as the sole reason behind Grandview's success is also groundless. Therefore, in order to make this argument more convincing, the author should be able to dispel aforementioned doubts from us.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 592, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...oncert series and might go for searching more cheaper shows. Thus, in order to fo...
^^
Line 3, column 594, Rule ID: MOST_COMPARATIVE[2]
Message: Use only 'cheaper' (without 'more') when you use the comparative.
Suggestion: cheaper
...cert series and might go for searching more cheaper shows. Thus, in order to fortify his ar...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, nevertheless, really, regarding, so, therefore, thus, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2352.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3576309795 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06930151372 2.78398813304 110% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514806378132 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 712.8 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.0273139474 57.8364921388 140% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.352941176 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8235294118 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.23529411765 5.70786347227 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135180136758 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.048050223436 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.053710788129 0.0701772020484 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0900428109027 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0326576109219 0.0628817314937 52% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.