The argument makes a number of unstated assumptions regarding the decision of the manager of WWAC radio station to change the radio's traditional rock-music style. Taken as whole, these assumptions, if not true, seriously undermine the argument validity and puts doubt on the impact that such manager's decision would have in reverse the decline on the radio's audiance.
Firstly, the argument fails to provide any evidence that the retired people moving to the radio's coverage area don't like rock-music. For one, rock has emerged mainly in the 60s to 80s decades, probably when the today's elderly people were just teanagers. Moreover, almost all the most influencing rock bands are formed by elderly from that decades, which can be an important factor influencing retired people preference to rock-music. Bearing these in mind, there are no rational reasons to anticipate that the retired population would not enjoy rock-music without a comprehensive research on the effective preferences of these people.
The argument still leaves some other questions unanswered. For example, it sugests that the decline in local sales of recorded music would indicate people's lack of interest in music. However, this drop in sales could merely be a consequence of the raising of new forms of consuming audio material, as for example via audiostreaming platforms. Indeed, such wrong causality assumption makes the argument flawed, suggesting that further invastigation on the new residents interest in music should be conducted to support the radio manager in its decision.
Finally, the argument claims without warrant that a good approach for the future of the WAAC radio station would be changing its program to focus on te popular news and talk format. Nevertheless, no information is provided to sustent the idea that this movement would impact positively the radio's audiance. As a recent and popular style that has largely been explored by TV channels and other radio stations, it can be a great challenge for WAAC to survive on such hard competition environment. Furthermore, the argument does not inform the impact that this changing could be in the current WAAC audiance.
To sum up, because the argument holds its basis in many unproven assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that giving up his rock-music traditional style to move for a news and talk format should benefits WAAC radio by boosting its audiance.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 91, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'radios'' or 'radio's'?
Suggestion: radios'; radio's
...e that the retired people moving to the radios coverage area dont like rock-music. For...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 112, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ople moving to the radios coverage area dont like rock-music. For one, rock has emer...
^^^^
Line 3, column 565, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'comprehensive research'.
Suggestion: comprehensive research
...tion would not enjoy rock-music without a comprehensive research on the effective preferences of these p...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, so, still, as for, for example, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2042.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27648578811 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78540506833 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.547803617571 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 633.6 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
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: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0240600355 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.133333333 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46666666667 5.70786347227 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
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: 0.198227749623 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0667672747662 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.052814448914 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113701392326 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0537285014791 0.0628817314937 85% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.61 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.