The following is the memorandum from the business manager of a television station:
"Over the past years, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, the local businesses, that used to advertise during our late night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.”
In this memorandum, the business manager of a television station argues that the station should devote more time to weather and local news to its previous levels in order to attract more viewers and to avoid losing advertising revenues. However, careful consideration of the argument reveals that it lends no credible support to the argument and makes three leaps in reasoning to make a mistaken investment.
First of all, the author unfairly assumes that local businesses would not cancel their advertising contracts if the station restore its time to local news to former levels. Yet, the author fails to substantiate. It could be that local businesses canceled their contracts not because the amount of time devoted to local news is reduced but because they found alternative advertising methods like internet. These days, local businesses can easily advertise with Google's location based advertisments. Without further investigation, it is hasty to conclude that other local businesses will not cancel their contracts with the station, even they devote more time to local news and weather.
Next, the claim by the business manager that the station would attract more viewers to the program by restoring the time devoted to weather and local news is not well substantiated. Just because the station received concerns with its coverage of weather and local news, it is hasty to conclude that more viewers will be attracted if it spend more time on weather and local news. Consider that the station received more concerns after late-night news program increased its time to national news, the viewers simply complained because the program coverage changed. The viewers could already adapt to new program coverage, and thus changing the program would not lead increase of new viewers. Rather, if the station devote more time to weather and local news to its former levels, the viewers may complain again concerned with station's decreased national news this time. Thus, it is hasty to conclude late-night news program would attract more viewers simply by devoting time to weather and local news.
Finally, the author assumes that change in late-night news would have significant results to its viewers. Yet, the author fails to consider that it is just a "late-night news". Granted that some viewers want more local news and weather than national news, it would not have significant increase in viewers because the program is fundamentally a late-night news program. There are not so many people watching news until late night, and it is hard to consider the late-night viewers are interested in local businesses or weather tomorrow. It could be that late-night viewers are more interested in national and global breaking news. Increase time on weather and local news would not have any meaningful result. Thus, it is hard to believe the author's argument that devoting time to weather and local news will attract more viewers to the program.
To sum, the author's argument that restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its previous levels would attract more viewers and avoid losing advertising revenues is logically flawed with the above mentioned reasons. To strengthen his or her argument, the author needs to carefully examine all possible factors and conditions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 528 350
No. of Characters: 2706 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.794 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.125 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.522 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 206 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.618 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.438 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.61 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.203 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 337, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'spends'?
Suggestion: spends
...at more viewers will be attracted if it spend more time on weather and local news. Co...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 157, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...uthor fails to consider that it is just a 'late-night news'. Granted th...
^
Line 7, column 752, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...result. Thus, it is hard to believe the authors argument that devoting time to weather ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... viewers to the program. To sum, the authors argument that restore the time devoted ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, thus, well, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 11.1786427146 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2775.0 2260.96107784 123% => OK
No of words: 528.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25568181818 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61951948217 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 196.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.371212121212 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 854.1 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.4440440617 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.136363636 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.31818181818 5.70786347227 58% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.455502276605 0.218282227539 209% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.192975613953 0.0743258471296 260% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114742327344 0.0701772020484 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.280273487271 0.128457276422 218% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.113415032023 0.0628817314937 180% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.91 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 103.0 98.500998004 105% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.