The author has presented his argument by stating that if the television station restores the time devoted to weather and local news to its formal level by replacing national news, it will attract more viewers and that they will also avoid losing advertising revenues. However, the argument is not tenable as the argument is backed by pieces of evidence that are not valid. As a result, the argument becomes dubious.
By stating the decision of the station to devote more time to national news and less time to weather and local news, the author has made a weak statement. He has not specified the duration of the increased show time. It might be that the difference in time is negligible to affect the local population. It is a speculation on the author's part and he is not providing the whole information to support his statement. He should have mentioned the earlier timings and the updated ones, which would have supported his claim in a better way.
Next, the author assumes that the complaints increased complaints regarding the station's coverage of weather and local news must be due to their decreased broadcast time. The complaints might be regarding a decline in the quality of local news coverage, or due to improper weather reporting. The local public may also be unhappy with some local news, which could have led to this increase in complaints. So, in order to validate his assumptions the author should have mentioned solid pieces of evidence to support his claim.
Citing the cancellation of advertising contracts during late-night news programs by local businesses as an impact of reducing local news and weather coverage time is a weak attempt by the author as he has assumed it to be the sole reason behind such incidences. It might be that the local businesses would have found a better station to advertise or the relationship between the station and local companies may have worsened over time. There could be numerous reasons behind these incidences. But blaming increased national news coverage timing without any evidence is irresponsible on the author's part.
The author concludes that by restoring the devoted time to weather and local news to its formal level, more viewers will be attracted to the program and the station will avoid losing any further advertising revenues. This assumption is based on fallacious logic and has not been backed by proper evidence. Extensive usage of vague terminology and erroneous assumptions make the author's cited claim incredible.
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: 19 15
No. of Words: 414 350
No. of Characters: 2052 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.511 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.957 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.639 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 152 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.37 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.124 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 81, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's
...ints increased complaints regarding the stations coverage of weather and local news must...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, regarding, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2093.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 414.0 441.139720559 94% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.05555555556 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.51076378781 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67881365809 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.437198067633 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 662.4 705.55239521 94% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5363775483 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.157894737 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7894736842 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.89473684211 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.354426419083 0.218282227539 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119217919502 0.0743258471296 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11352664731 0.0701772020484 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221269650353 0.128457276422 172% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0598952141089 0.0628817314937 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.07 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.