The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.
"When the Grandview Symphony was established ten years ago, the city of Grandview agreed to provide the symphony with annual funding until the symphony became self-sustaining. Two years ago, 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 tripled and attendance at the symphony's outdoor summer concert series has reached record highs. Now that the symphony has succeeded in finding an audience, the city can eliminate its funding of the symphony."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the given statement, the budget planner suggested that since the symphony has succeeded in absorbing audience, it is getting sustained financially and the local government should hinder its financial supports to the symphony. The conclusion is replete with unwarranted assumptions, which considering together make the argument unconvincing.
To begin with, the author concluded that because the symphony has reached apex of audience in its outdoor summer concert performs, it can cover all expenses and it does not need supports. Perhaps, attendants of summer concert were a lot due to tourists and not permanent residents. As a result, hike in number of audience may not be consistent in other seasons and the symphony confronted financial problems again. Also, possibly since in summer schools are closed and weather is good, people of Grandview tend to go outdoor concerts to promote their children spiritually, while in other seasons they are not keen on go to concert. Hence, the audience will be decline and the symphony will need financial supports. To strengthen the conclusion, he should provide quantified data about number of audience in different seasons of past years.
Furthermore, the author assumes that because of private contributions have tripled, the symphony became independent financially. Perhaps, the number of private contributions were only two and now after became tripled it is six which are few yet. On the other hand, the amount of donation is more important than number of donors. It is likely that the amount of money they help to the symphony is insignificant and the symphony is not able to be self-sustained. To bolster the proposal, the author should give information about the amount of money given by private contributions.
Finally, the author indicated that because of prominent conductor and his efforts to attract high-profile guest musicians, the audience of symphony augmented. It is a crucial question that if the famous conductor disband, what will be happen for the symphony. The budget planner assumes that the conductor will work for Grandview’s symphony forever, thus it is not a convincing assumption. Moreover, it is true that conspicuous musicians absorb more audience too, although they are usually high paid persons and the author did not point out about their wages. It might be even with absorbing many audience, the symphony could not cover the wages of musicians. To strengthen the argument, the author should make clear the equivocal conditions of conductor and guest musicians.
In conclusion, to champion the conclusion, the author should provide more quantified data about income and expenses of the symphony in different seasons of past years in order to comparison. Additionally, he ought to give some information about the number of donors and more importantly the amount of donation. It is also suggested that the author explains about the prospective position of conductor in the symphony.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 22 15
No. of Words: 468 350
No. of Characters: 2439 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.651 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.212 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.808 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 194 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 68 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.273 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.641 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.545 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.337 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.531 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.091 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 598, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun audience seems to be countable; consider using: 'many audiences'.
Suggestion: many audiences
... wages. It might be even with absorbing many audience, the symphony could not cover the wages...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, furthermore, hence, if, may, moreover, so, then, thus, while, in conclusion, as a result, it is true, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 55.5748502994 122% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2512.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 468.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.36752136752 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65116196802 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95671219082 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463675213675 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 765.9 705.55239521 109% => 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: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.059666243 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.181818182 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2727272727 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.176135296148 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0528566778286 0.0743258471296 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0579819246997 0.0701772020484 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0963149075815 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0256219292576 0.0628817314937 41% => 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: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.87 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.32 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.