The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview. "It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. In addition, the symphony has just announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. For these reasons, we recommend that the city eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget. We predict that the symphony will flourish in the years to come even without funding from the city." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The extent to which the government should fund for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra has been complicated in its implication. The memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview recommends that the city eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget, since they predict that symphony will flourish even without funding from the city. To buttress the argument, the author cites the following evidences: first, private contribution from last year increased by 200 percent; second attendance doubled; last, symphony has just announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. While it might be true that symphony is capable of self-funding, we are not able to fully evaluate the predicted result from this recommendation due to some unanswered questions.
To begin with, the question requiring more evidences is that whether private contribution provides enough funding for the symphony to survive and whether it would continue to do so. If private contributions have been low over several years, then even they increased by 200 percent last year, they might still not be enough to support the whole operation of symphony. To better evaluate the recommendation, the author ought to provide more detailed information about specific donations from private funding over past many years. In addition, the question that whether condition in last year is atypical needs to be addressed. In all likelihood, when economy in this city has been improved significantly from last year and would stabilize for next five years, then it is promising that private contribution would enhance dramatically owing to better economic conditions and government support would be unnecessary. On the other hand, if most people only made contribution once and decided to no more devote more money, then we perhaps cannot foresee the expected result from this recommendation.
Moreover, the author fails to offer some information about the attendance at symphony's concerts-in-the-park series. If this is just a free activity to publicize symphony and attract the public, then citizens may be willing to join because of curiosity and free of charge. However, some probably will lose interest in it or do not want to pay for such performances. in this case, attendance from this particular concert cannot provide full information and meaningful support to their recommendation. If they no longer hold such events in the future, the attendance would not increase greatly.
Last but not least, the author unfairly assumes that increase in ticket prices for next year would guaranteed the self-support of symphony, thereby eliminating city funding. Nonetheless, they neglect potential decrease in attendance due to price increase. It is natural that demands for symphony would decrease when its price increases, in that enhancing prices may crowd out those whose reservation cost is relatively lower. Therefore, no one can ensure that symphony is able to gather much money from audiences after price increase. Furthermore, the author should also take the cost into consideration. It is likely that costs, including operation costs and labor costs, can increase next year. Hence, even though symphony might benefit from increasing audiences or increasing admission fees, costs may even exceed revenues. In conclusion, without answering the question about impacts for all the potential changes occurring in the future, the conclusion in the memo is problematic.
To sum up, as it stands, the recommendation is replied on evidences with considerable unanswered questions. To better decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result, the author ought to answer the questions as follows: first, whether private contribution is able to support symphony next year; second, whether attendance in normal setting of symphony performances would increase a lot; finally, whether symphony would ensure higher profits after price increase.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 and argument 2 should be put together for:
It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled.
don't need to put them separately.
----------------------
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: 24 15
No. of Words: 615 350
No. of Characters: 3288 1500
No. of Different Words: 275 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.98 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.346 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.828 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 250 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 200 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 142 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.773 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.833 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.305 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 796, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... due to some unanswered questions. To begin with, the question requiring mo...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 767, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
... stabilize for next five years, then it is promising that private contribution would enhance...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 366, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: In
... not want to pay for such performances. in this case, attendance from this particu...
^^
Line 5, column 598, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ndance would not increase greatly. Last but not least, the author unfairly ...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 100, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'would' requires the base form of the verb: 'guarantee'
Suggestion: guarantee
...se in ticket prices for next year would guaranteed the self-support of symphony, thereby e...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 991, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lusion in the memo is problematic. To sum up, as it stands, the recommendat...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, nonetheless, second, so, still, then, therefore, while, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 81.0 55.5748502994 146% => OK
Nominalization: 34.0 16.3942115768 207% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3403.0 2260.96107784 151% => OK
No of words: 610.0 441.139720559 138% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.57868852459 5.12650576532 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.96972615649 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19512738741 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 290.0 204.123752495 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475409836066 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 1033.2 705.55239521 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 13.0 4.22255489022 308% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 95.0646277367 57.8364921388 164% => OK
Chars per sentence: 162.047619048 119.503703932 136% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0476190476 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.61904761905 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.3186660533 0.218282227539 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0988080461653 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118414836394 0.0701772020484 169% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186584499237 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.161921741142 0.0628817314937 258% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.4 14.3799401198 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.68 12.5979740519 124% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 150.0 98.500998004 152% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.