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 argument makes a number unsubatantiated assumptions regarding stoppting funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. In general, careful examination of the supporting evidence reveals that it lends little credible to support applications claim. There remain some questions that need answering before any steps can be taken.
The argument assumes that two times bigger attendance at the concerts is a reason to stop funding. However, it is not clear what the attendace was last year. For instance, the attendance might have been very low and after increasing it the attendace could has been still not big. As a result, this assumption does not prove that Symphony is good payment by big numbers of selling tickets.
Another unsataed assumption the argument makes is that the increasing of the tickets’ price will improve the economics situation. Nevertheless, there is no information about previous tickets’ price and, for example, the price could have been not high next year. Therefore, the Symphony will not have a lot of money. Unless the author provides the numbers the argument can not be effective.
Besides it, the author assumes that after increasing by 200 percent the private contributions to the symphony it is not necessary to fund from government. But, there is no information about what contribution was. It could have been that this amount was extrimely low. Without this information it might be a mistake to stop funding.
In conclusion, the recommendation to eliminate funding is not well supported. To strenghten it the author has to provide information about previous ticket’s price, the attendance in last year at the concerts and the amount of funding. Unless, the assumption adderssed the argument will fall apart and it could have been a wrong decision to stop funding Grandview Symphony Orchestra.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 256, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'could' requires the base form of the verb: 'have'
Suggestion: have
...after increasing it the attendace could has been still not big. As a result, this a...
^^^
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Unless” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... Symphony will not have a lot of money. Unless the author provides the numbers the arg...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['besides', 'but', 'however', 'nevertheless', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'well', 'as to', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'in general', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.250755287009 0.25644967241 98% => OK
Verbs: 0.175226586103 0.15541462614 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0725075528701 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0453172205438 0.0520304965353 87% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0271903323263 0.0272364105082 100% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0936555891239 0.125424944231 75% => OK
Participles: 0.0453172205438 0.0416121511921 109% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.98590426116 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0271903323263 0.026700313972 102% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.123867069486 0.113004496875 110% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0332326283988 0.0255425247493 130% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00906344410876 0.0127820249294 71% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 1839.0 2731.13054187 67% => OK
No of words: 290.0 446.07635468 65% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.34137931034 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.12666770723 4.57801047555 90% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.386206896552 0.378187486979 102% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.331034482759 0.287650121315 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.255172413793 0.208842608468 122% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.165517241379 0.135150697306 122% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98590426116 2.79052419416 107% => OK
Unique words: 146.0 207.018472906 71% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503448275862 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 49.6245542139 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 16.1111111111 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.551333765 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.166666667 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.1111111111 23.2022227129 69% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.724660767414 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 49.214559387 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.57317073171 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.528991193232 0.441005458295 120% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119651096874 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0681575860604 0.0829849096947 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.547525068676 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.120766281411 0.147661913831 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.204661782798 0.193483328276 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104005979271 0.0970749176394 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.337150093494 0.42659136922 79% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0955723420215 0.0774707102158 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.357207938438 0.312017818177 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0594673941712 0.0698173142475 85% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 3.0 6.46551724138 46% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More content wanted. For issue essays, around 450 words, for argument essays, around 400 words.
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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: This is not the final score. 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.