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."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author argues that WWAC radio station should shift from its current rock-music format to a news and talk format to increase the number of listeners. He has come to this conclusion based on the recent decline in listeners, despite the population growth from retirees, and declines in local sales of recorded music; suggesting limited interest in music. However, before the strength of his argument can be properly evaluated, three pieces of evidence must be assessed.
First of all, the author must provide information regarding the demographics of WWAC radio station’s audience. Perhaps most listeners predominantly consist of adults in their early twenties. If this were the case, then it is possible that the decline in listener number is due to other factors. For instance, maybe many listeners recently discovered another radio station that plays more modern rock-music while WWAC’s music is not up-to-date. If the above is true, then changing to a news and talk format would be counteractive, as it may deter a greater number of youth listeners.
Second of all, the author must demonstrate that the decline in listender numbers is in fact due to their rock-music format. It is possible that most WWAC listeners recently discovered and prefer downloading music onto their phones and listening to music through their devices while driving. Moreover, maybe they prefer having full control over their playlist rather than having to wait until WWAC plays the song they want to listen to. If any of these scenarios has merit, then the argument to change WWAC’s format would not hold water, as it may upset the remaining audience and further decrease the number of listeners.
Lastly, the author must illustrate that changing the format to target retirees would effectively increase listener numbers. Perhaps most of the elderly population in this area are deaf and cannot listen to the radio. As a result, they may resort to watching television with subtitles and never attempt listening to the radio. Alternatively, it is possible that many new residents enjoy rock-music but are simply not aware of WWAC radio station. If any of these cases are true, then the author’s argument would be significantly weakened, as changing the format would not be effective.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its lack of supporting evidence. If the author is able to provide additional evidence to support his claims, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the viability of his argument to change WWAC radio station from its current rock-music format to a news and talk format.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 427 350
No. of Characters: 2141 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.546 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.014 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.596 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.474 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.946 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.789 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.336 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, lastly, may, moreover, regarding, second, so, then, while, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2209.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 427.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17330210773 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54576487731 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70512383008 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.480093676815 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 678.6 705.55239521 96% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7292612719 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.263157895 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.4736842105 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.73684210526 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.390377743143 0.218282227539 179% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121610443377 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795086024937 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.240187097693 0.128457276422 187% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554882131904 0.0628817314937 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.2 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.