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 manager of WWAC radio station concludes that change in format of radio increases the number of listeners. He comes to this conclusion based on sales of recorded music as well as local observation. The author's assertion might be true, but following three explanations must be substantiated to evaluate the credibility of the argument.
First of all, the author assumes that changing from current rock format increases the quantity of listeners. It is possible that these wavering formats of the radio aggravates its regular listeners. These people who usually listen to WWAC radio for its best rock music if not provided the music of their taste, can cause further decrease in listeners. It is also possible that the station may not meet the requirements of people that like another format causing the next design of program also be ephemeral; further declining the target people of the station. If any of these scenarios have merit, then the argument does not hold water.
Secondly, the manager assumes that there is relation between sales of recorded music and interest in music. Perhaps, music available in internet is of better quality and easily accessible to people than which is recorded that cause the shift of listening from recorded disc to online music. Also, the local sellers may not have made available the cassettes of new songs so people are attracted to other stores outside the area to buy recorded music. If any of these are true, then the conclusion of the argument is significantly flawed.
Finally, it is assumed that news and talk programs are popular and such shows can wax the quantity of WWAC lovers. It might be true that even though people like the episodes of interview with famous people they do not want to listen to it all day. Such programs are only loved sporadically and changing the whole system of radio to frequent talk shows is reproached by customers. Moreover, only shows that feat luminous people are preferred highly and the shows that includes less popular celebrities are found boring and tedious. These banal formats can cause noticeable decline in number of listeners rather than increase it. If any of these cases are valid, then the credibility of the argument is hindered.
Thus, in conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the manager is able to provide evidence to these three explanations (perhaps based on systematic study approach), then the viability of the argument can fully be determined.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 419 350
No. of Characters: 2067 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.524 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.933 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.569 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 113 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.95 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.987 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.304 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.304 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 206, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...music as well as local observation. The authors assertion might be true, but following ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, well, in conclusion, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2113.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.04295942721 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64071627992 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494033412888 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 675.0 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.4611054537 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.65 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.95 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.24082607988 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0726772307246 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0729880915339 0.0701772020484 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131136756692 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0730297809629 0.0628817314937 116% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.