The following appeared in a memorandum issued by a large city’s council on the arts:
“In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts
than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our
city’s art museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television,
where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that
attendance at our city’s art museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds for supporting the arts
should be reallocated to public television.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the memorandum claims that city's funding for suppoting arts should be rellocated to public television. The claim is suported by the fact that an 15% increase in viewership of visual art programme coincided with 15% increase in footfall of the museums. It also claims that the severe cuts in visual art programs will lead to decrease in footfall. The argument of the author is based on fragile assumptions as we will discuss in the pragraphs below.
The author claims that the positive corelation of footfall in the museums and viewership of visual art programs implies causation. This is flawed line of reasoning as corelation doesn't imply causation. It is possible that both viewership of visual art and footfall were increases because of a well managed social media campaign.
In addition to that, the claim that severe cuts in visual art programme will lead to a decrease in footfall is not well substantiated as it relies on the assumption that since there was a positive corelation between the two in the past there must be positive corelation in the present. This line of reasoning is flawed as, just because there was a positive corelation in the past it does not imply positive corelation in the present. For example it is possible that increase in viewership and footfall in past were both cause by government social media campaigns but in the present, the visual arts programs have become unpopular hence the severe cuts. Due to lack of visual art programme people might come to museums more often to experince art hence increasing the footfall, such a case would contradict the author assumption that there will be a positive corelation in the future as well.
Thus the argument of the author that the city should rellocate its funding to public television is fragile as it relies on flawed assumption and line reasoning as discussed in the paragraphs above. The author should substantiate his augment by showing that increase in viewership of visual art programme causes increase in footfall.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 179, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... flawed line of reasoning as corelation doesnt imply causation. It is possible that bo...
^^^^^^
Line 13, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... corelation in the future as well. Thus the argument of the author that the cit...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, so, thus, well, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1696.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 338.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.01775147929 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71940972346 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 133.0 204.123752495 65% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.39349112426 0.468620217663 84% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 524.7 705.55239521 74% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
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: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => 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: 60.1516820386 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.461538462 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.46153846154 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0713955284318 0.218282227539 33% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0330209033792 0.0743258471296 44% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0188532489911 0.0701772020484 27% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0511661724269 0.128457276422 40% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0141037712518 0.0628817314937 22% => 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: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 61.0 98.500998004 62% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.