The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station.
“To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here after their retirement. We must make listeners of these new residents. We could switch to a music format tailored to their tastes, but a continuing decline in local sales of recorded music suggests limited interest in music. Instead we should change to a news and talk format, a form of radio that is increasingly popular in our area."
A bunch of questions within the passage need to be answered. One pertains to whether these new residents recently moved after retirement have distaste to rock music, another one, whether the form of news and talk popular in that area is favored by these retired people, is also need to be proved by citing more evidence. Thus, the author's argument is problematic and rife with holes.
Firstly, the author begins with the statement that their listeners are declining while the total population is growing as a number of retired people moving to the town. And the writer's assumption underlying his argument that they need to make those elders their new listeners is they have no feelings toward rock music so they manage to change a form of music. Here, no survey or any related research is conducted to prove these old residents do no love rock. Hence, as we know, the gold time of rock'n'roll was around 70's or 80's, when was those at those elders' young age, thus it could be not shocked that they are actually zealots of that music. Consequently, it undercuts the writer's argument of changing music. Moreover, the passage just presents an assertation made by author that they are switching to music tailored to their tastes, but no such data concerning what they love is given in the passage. The author fails to pursuit their flavor only by contemplating instead of making a market research. As a result, it is suggested that the writer's argument will be strengthened if he or she could cite more evidence.
Secondly, the author also mentions that after implementing their new music strategy, the number of listeners even significantly goes down again, and then results that tragedy from the imprecise selection of music for new residents. Here, while it might be true for the author to consider the opinions from new comers but more significantly is that, he fails to take the ideas of their currently maintained listeners into account, and such situation results in a severer embarrassment that, not only could not attract new listeners but also lose old fans. Thus, to ameliorate this loss, the author needs to reconsider from a wider range. Additionally, what if the cause of that loss is that they have no idea of WWAC radio station because of limited advertisement input. If this is true, making the writer's argument vulnerable in logic.
Finally, the author also argues that they should transform to a news and talk format favored by increasing people in the area. At this point, the author could not show any information about the fans of such format, are they old? Or are they young? If these population are elders, it could be a promise way to change, but if they are mainly youngsters, the change no longer has any meaning because it obeys the station's significant aim, making newly moved retired people their new listener. Furthermore, even though positing these fans are elders, the number of them is not shown to prove that it is worthy to pursuit them by giving up their old followers. For example, the currently maintained fans are 100 people, if the station changes its rock music to a news format favored by elders, whose number is only 50, so it is unwise to make a change. Hence, before really transform a music format, two important things need to be done and they are conducting whether news and talk is elders' favorite and what is the opportunity cost if the author makes a change.
In a nutshell, it might be said that no convincing deduction in the passage is given, and the writer fails to take alternative evidence to complete his idea. The argument ends up with an outright untenable conclusion based on wishy-washy findings that are possible to be inaccurate. Thus, the writer fails to persuade the WWAC radio station to make a change.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 13 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 651 350
No. of Characters: 3050 1500
No. of Different Words: 278 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.051 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.685 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.515 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 205 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.038 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.504 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.278 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.462 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 279, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'needed'.
Suggestion: needed
...avored by these retired people, is also need to be proved by citing more evidence. T...
^^^^
Line 1, column 332, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...oved by citing more evidence. Thus, the authors argument is problematic and rife with h...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nt is problematic and rife with holes. Firstly, the author begins with the stat...
^^^
Line 3, column 178, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ired people moving to the town. And the writers assumption underlying his argument that...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 678, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...t music. Consequently, it undercuts the writers argument of changing music. Moreover, t...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1045, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
.... As a result, it is suggested that the writers argument will be strengthened if he or ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...f he or she could cite more evidence. Secondly, the author also mentions that ...
^^^
Line 5, column 799, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'writers'' or 'writer's'?
Suggestion: writers'; writer's
...ment input. If this is true, making the writers argument vulnerable in logic. Final...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... writers argument vulnerable in logic. Finally, the author also argues that the...
^^^
Line 7, column 252, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this population' or 'these populations'?
Suggestion: this population; these populations
...at, are they old? Or are they young? If these population are elders, it could be a promise way t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ity cost if the author makes a change. In a nutshell, it might be said that no ...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, if, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, then, thus, while, for example, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 40.0 19.6327345309 204% => Less to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 66.0 28.8173652695 229% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 78.0 55.5748502994 140% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3127.0 2260.96107784 138% => OK
No of words: 649.0 441.139720559 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.81818181818 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04732388556 4.56307096286 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57890363219 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 289.0 204.123752495 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.44530046225 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 979.2 705.55239521 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.9054276988 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.269230769 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9615384615 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.42307692308 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
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: 0.161256796664 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0455537152626 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0483190283492 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0868994615752 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0396144433751 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.28 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 98.500998004 144% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.