In the memorandum from business manager of a televison station, it is stated that time devoted to weather and local news should be augmented and bring back to its former level beacause of cancelled advertising contracts and complaints received from viewers about their conern with stations's coverage of weather and local news.
So, at first glance author's argument appeals to be convincing but further reflection reveals that it is rife with holes and assumptuions.
To begin with, the argument readily assumes that people's complaints received were regarding the content shown on late night TV programs. There is no evidence what did people had to say and what were the queries of viewers. The argument could have been much clearer if its explicitly stated about people complaining of the content being displayed and their predilection watching weather and local news.
In addition to this, the argument claims that local businesses that used to advertise during late night contracts have cancelled their advertisig contracts because of devoted increased time to national news. Is it not possible that there were other reasons of cancelling the contracts? It is nowhere stated that advertising company cancelled their contracts because TV channels were inclined towards national news.To strengthen this claim, there should be a plausible evidence about the reasons of anulling the contract. What were the exact problems of companies?
It is possible that other channels were offering great deal to showcase their companies advertisemnets.
Finally, there are some questions that needs to be answered. It is stated that to attract more viewers and avoid losing further advertising revenues, TV stations should restore time devoted to weather and local news t it's former level. Is there any gurantee or evidence that viewership would be restored? How reliable was the survey to get to the point of devoting more time to weather and local news? Is it not possible that people are interested in national news? What were the other news channels displaying in that time period?
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for above reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts about viewers complaints, reason for anulled contracts and evidence for getting back same viewership after restoring the time devoted to local and weather news.Without this information it is open to debate.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 389 350
No. of Characters: 2038 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.441 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.239 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 92 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.611 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.311 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.389 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.544 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 415, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: To
...els were inclined towards national news.To strengthen this claim, there should be ...
^^
Line 11, column 337, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Without
... time devoted to local and weather news.Without this information it is open to debate.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, if, regarding, so, then, therefore, in addition, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2083.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 387.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38242894057 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43534841618 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73821840015 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 189.0 204.123752495 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488372093023 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 705.55239521 89% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 81.6829159949 57.8364921388 141% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.722222222 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.44444444444 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.319943508118 0.218282227539 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.1034732987 0.0743258471296 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.112746302798 0.0701772020484 161% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148726211548 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.124764541067 0.0628817314937 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.3799401198 102% => OK
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: 13.92 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.59 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.