The memo from the budget planner for the city of Grandview read that the funding for the Grandview symphony orchestra will be stopped. The following explanations were cited for the same. 1) Private contribution to the symphony increased by 200 percent and the attendance at the symphony's concert in-the-park series doubled. 2) Symphony has announced an increase in the ticket prices for next year. The reasons cited in the memo seem unwarranted and incomplete explanations for cutting out the funding for the orchestra.
The first contention in the memo shows a weak analogy between the increase in the private contribution and the attendance in the symphony's concerts. The correlation that has been exhibited in this statement is totally baseless. There is no mention of how the increased funds have been utilized in making the symphony's concert a success. It could be possible that the orchestra revamped their approach to public performance by choosing different melodies. There could also be a possibility that the orchestra has used a different coir for the present performance as compared to the previous one's.
The symphony orchestra could also have done a campaigning prior to the show or sent out flyers. The incoming funds and a grand success could be mere coincidences. Also, maybe it was the symphony orchestra's promotional events that have resulted in an increase in the attendance. Another major possibility could be that the symphony orchestra teamed up with another band or orchestra to stage a combined performance. Thus merely stating that the private funds increased the attendance for the concert is irrational.
Symphony's announcement for the increase in ticket prices for the next year in no way allows to draw a conclusion that the Grandview symphony orchestra needs no funding. The increase in tickets are stated for the next year and not for the present season. Without looking into the intricacies of the reason for the increase it is unfair to jump to any conclusions. The reasons for the increase could range from anything like increasing entertainment taxes, or increase in costs for stage shows. This could also be seen as a promotional technique to create any publicity among the people which could in-turn help them in increasing the attendance in their shows.
In addition, the memo 'predicts' that the symphony will flourish. This prophecy is extremely queer and the budget planner is making a whimsical assumption. The future of the symphony cannot be predicted at this point of time as music is something that changes from one generation to the next. Even if and hopefully the symphony flourishes in the future, it would require more funds to maintain its position. Thus cutting off the funds predicting its success is unwarranted.
Lastly I would like to conclude that the budget planning in terms of cutting funds for the symphony orchestra needs to be reconsidered as it is flawed in many aspects. There is also no mention as to where these funds would be utilized in case of the cut. Other aspects needed to be considered is how the Symphony orchestra has utilized the city funds in the last few years and if the private funding is indeed 200 percent. The percent increase if 200 or 100 needs to be verified from a registered source. The city budget planner should also request a report of expenses from the symphony orchestra and only after considering all the factors decide on whether the funding indeed need be cut.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- better to say: May be the private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled still can't cover the cost.
argument 2 -- duplicated to argument 1, one argument is enough
argument 3 -- not exactly. Rising the price will result in less customers.
argument 4 -- better to say: a lot of other reasons for the flourish.
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 30 15
No. of Words: 574 350
No. of Characters: 2849 1500
No. of Different Words: 241 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.895 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.963 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.749 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 207 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 172 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 123 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.228 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.467 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.307 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.508 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 150, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...e attendance in the symphonys concerts. The correlation that has been exhibited in ...
^^^
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...hestra to stage a combined performance. Thus merely stating that the private funds i...
^^^^
Line 7, column 93, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'drawing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: drawing
...ices for the next year in no way allows to draw a conclusion that the Grandview symphon...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 651, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...er considering all the factors decide on whether the funding indeed need be cut.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, lastly, look, may, so, thus, as to, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2897.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 574.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04703832753 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89472135074 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78901361123 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426829268293 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 891.9 705.55239521 126% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 30.0 19.7664670659 152% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.9480489348 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.5666666667 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1333333333 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.3 5.70786347227 40% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.381477321056 0.218282227539 175% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.114153721652 0.0743258471296 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11248262251 0.0701772020484 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.220801987998 0.128457276422 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.126134508495 0.0628817314937 201% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.