The business manager's main argument sounds reasonable: more weather/local news will attract local viewers which will bring back local businesses. However, under analysis, there are evidential flaws that make this argument less compelling.
First, the manager cites evidence that the majority of complaints about the lack of time spent on weather and local news. However, this complaints may quantifiably be insignificant to the general audience population. As a result, due to a lack of relative quantities of complaints, it is unknown whether the lack of weather and local news is a significant issue for the general audience.
Furthermore, the manager also cites evidence that local businesses are canceling advertisement contracts, leading to a decrease in revenue. Again, the number of businesses canceling contracts and the amount of revenue lost over the past year is unknown, and without significant changes in revenue and business contracts, it's unconvincing to see whether the news program needs to take financial action.
Finally, the manager claims that these changes will lead to a rise in viewers. To begin, the initial evidence provided didn't state anything about the loss of viewership, nor did it present any evidence of a decrease of viewers from the year before. This lack of evidence of viewership doesn't seem convincing to believe that the general audience population is decreasing significantly.
Overall, the argument does give a reasonable proposal with logical flow of reasoning. However, without numerical data to support its reasoning, this proposal is unconvincing, and unless significant detrimental changes are observed, the late-night news program should proceed without change.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 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: 262 350
No. of Characters: 1415 1500
No. of Different Words: 138 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.023 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.401 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.84 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 112 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 102 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.523 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.583 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.367 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.074 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 119, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...To begin, the initial evidence provided didnt state anything about the loss of viewer...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 285, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...re. This lack of evidence of viewership doesnt seem convincing to believe that the gen...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 308, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'believing'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'convince' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: believing
...ce of viewership doesnt seem convincing to believe that the general audience population is...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1454.0 2260.96107784 64% => OK
No of words: 259.0 441.139720559 59% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6138996139 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.01166760082 4.56307096286 88% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98837209269 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.567567567568 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 452.7 705.55239521 64% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
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: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.7726735085 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.166666667 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5833333333 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.20758483034 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.236919927908 0.218282227539 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0780075780723 0.0743258471296 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652136967692 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.120399075661 0.128457276422 94% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.048696168668 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.3799401198 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => 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.