The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.
"Our citizens are well aware of the fact that while the Grandview Symphony Orchestra was struggling to succeed, our city government promised annual funding to help support its programs. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Such developments indicate that the symphony can now succeed without funding from city government and we can eliminate that expense from next year's budget. Therefore, we recommend that the city of Grandview eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony from next year's budget. By doing so, we can prevent a city budget deficit without threatening the success of the symphony."
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 recommendation from a budget planner that the city of Grandview should eliminate its funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year’s budget disregards certain crucial assumptions.
Initially, it is proffered that since the private contributions to Grandview Symphony has increased, also the attendance of people to the concerts in the park series doubled and that the ticket prices will be increased next year, so no funding would be necessary for the next year. However, the author fails to acknowledge that, just because the concerts-in-the-park series was profitable, the upcoming programs would be successful as well. Also, the private investors might not fund Grandview Symphony for the following year, leading it back to the struggling phase. The unavailability to prove the above fallacies renders this claim unjustified.
Secondly, the writer posits that Grandview Symphony is going to increase the ticket prices for next year which will result in the success. Here, the fact that escalating the prices for the programs might drive the people away rather than enticing them to attend the concerts. In addition, private investors, seeing this trend may hold back their funds for future programs at the Orchestra and it might need the funds from the city government more than ever.
Lastly, it is claimed that by eliminating the funds from the city government’s budget for Grandview Symphony Orchestra, the city budget deficits can be prevented. However, if there were deficits in the budget by providing funds to the Orchestra, the government should not have initiated the annual funding to support it in the first place. More so, there is no indication that the developments that Grandview Symphony has made will last and it will continue to thrive without the government’s help.
Therefore, the argument that the city government should eliminate funding Grandview Symphony Orchestra lacks substantial information to prove itself and fails to make a cogent case.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- need to argue more for:
Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
No. of Words: 313 350
--------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 313 350
No. of Characters: 1642 1500
No. of Different Words: 152 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.206 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.246 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.754 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 123 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.083 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.036 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.395 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, therefore, well, in addition, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 30.0 55.5748502994 54% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1704.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 312.0 441.139720559 71% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.46153846154 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.20279927342 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00399689916 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 157.0 204.123752495 77% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503205128205 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 499.5 705.55239521 71% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.5444829049 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.0 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.5 5.70786347227 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380122637814 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.149350709979 0.0743258471296 201% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.109408710946 0.0701772020484 156% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.237477960337 0.128457276422 185% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0954578021379 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.3 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.68 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.52 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 71.0 98.500998004 72% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.