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.
The memorandum explains why the city of Grandview have supported the local symphony for recenct years and why they should stop funding this symphony. Being small and unknown, the symphony needed financial aid to grow at the beginning, however, when a professional conductor was hired, he could invite famous guest musicians to perform with the symphony which led to more revenue and private contributions. Now the author proposes the elimination of funding program for symphony, because it can live independently. Although the proposal sounds logical, the unstated assumptions upon which it has been formulated can change the situation after stopping funds to symphony.
First, The author of the memorandum assumes that the local symphony will remain the only music producer in the city for feature years, but the fast pace of modern life refutes this view. There is no guarantee that Grandview’s denizens will go to symphony and listen the classical pieces for forceable future, since technological advances have made many things available to people which can substitute the physical experience of symphony. Moreover, the author is unable to predict the interests of modern generations toward music performed in the symphony for the next years that may have a disastrous effect on the independence of symphony.
Second, the inflation is another factor which is not examined by the writer in his proposal. Probably, in the next few years, the symphony owners or the conductor increase the ticket prices to handle the maintenance and operations costs which subsequently decrease the number of audience. If we accept this hypothesis, then the role of Grandview city is still important to backup local symphony to survive. In other words, financial instabilities prevent granview city to completely discard its funding program.
Finally, The memorandum indicates that the presence of famous guest musicians in the Grandview’s symphony is a sign of prosperity in near future. Though indeed it is, those musicians have not promised to come to symphony forever and any untoward incidence may lower their willingness to perform at the symphony for coming years. The author has to provide a detailed mechanism to retain guest muscians interests and make them loyal to Granview; otherwise, the symphony is losing the big revenue and private contributions which itself undermines the theory of stopping funds for the symphony.
In conclusion, the author’s suggestion to put an end to the funding programs of Granview city for its symphony needs to review his idea and examine the unstated assumptions which may have irreparable consequences. The interest of people and new kind of media for next years, inflation and increasing costs and the willingness of guest musicians to join the symphony are the assumptions that should be considered before taking actions.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 370, Rule ID: CAN_BACKUP[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to back up'?
Suggestion: to back up
...le of Grandview city is still important to backup local symphony to survive. In other wor...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, still, then, as to, in conclusion, kind of, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2424.0 2260.96107784 107% => OK
No of words: 450.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38666666667 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92583553541 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.531111111111 0.468620217663 113% => OK
syllable_count: 749.7 705.55239521 106% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1086869181 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 151.5 119.503703932 127% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.125 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.4375 5.70786347227 130% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252210430232 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0887180629287 0.0743258471296 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484776066863 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152437278036 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.020320676575 0.0628817314937 32% => 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: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.27 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: 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.