The following appeared in a memorandum written by the managing director of the Exeunt Theater Company:
“Now that we have moved to a larger theater, we can expect to increase our revenues from ticket sales. To further increase profits, we should start producing the plays that have been most successful when they were performed in our nation’s largest cities. In addition, we should hire the Adlib Theater Company’s director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib.”
The author proposes that to increase the profits the Executive Theater Company should start producing plays because they were a great hit nation’s largest cities. Also, they should hire the Adlib Theater Company’s director of fund-raising, since corporate contributions to Adlib have increased significantly over the three years that she has worked for Adlib. Close examination of the assumptions reveal that they cannot be lend credible in the support if the argument.
Firstly, a larger theater doesn’t guarantee increase in the revenue of the ticket sale. The author provides no rigorous evidence that the increase in the size of the theater would result in the rise of revenue of the ticket sales.
Secondly, if the theater company starts producing play it may or may not be advantageous to the company. The author assumes just because the plays were a hit in the larger cities, similar would be the case here.
Thirdly, hiring the Adlib Theater Company’s director of fund-raising, might not be the righteous act as there is no evidence that the increase in the corporate contribution was her doing. Hiring her may not contribute to the profits of the company as the author assumes. The author fails to deliver proof in the support of the assumption.
To sum up, the above stated reasons nullify the author’s claim. The author must dig deeper and collect data supporting the claim that producing plays would provide bigger profits.
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 12 15
No. of Words: 237 350
No. of Characters: 1175 1500
No. of Different Words: 124 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 3.924 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.958 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.569 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 92 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 68 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 38 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 22 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.112 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.415 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.685 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.179 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 89, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...author's claim. The author must dig deeper and collect data supporting the c...
^^
Line 11, column 187, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ing plays would provide bigger profits.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, if, may, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 2.0 11.1786427146 18% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 13.0 28.8173652695 45% => OK
Preposition: 26.0 55.5748502994 47% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1239.0 2260.96107784 55% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 236.0 441.139720559 53% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.25 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.91947592106 4.56307096286 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84625617813 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 124.0 204.123752495 61% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.525423728814 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 376.2 705.55239521 53% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.5555201247 57.8364921388 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.25 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.91666666667 5.70786347227 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => 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: 0.202375343413 0.218282227539 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811364966026 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0790771430146 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120819362472 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0833726508555 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.79 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
Rates: 33.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 2.0 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.