The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station. “Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, 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 the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.”
The author agrues here that becouse of increased time devoted to national news and less time to weather and local news, the Television station is loosing advertisement reveneue and not attracting more viewers. Stated in this way, the argument fails to explain several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To support this conclusions the author reasons to restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that itprovides little credible support for the author's conclusions. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that there are substantial amount of viewers of the late-night news program. This is a merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, only a few amount of viewers really watch late night show and most/all of them need the previous weather and local news coverage during that particular time. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated the amount or percent of viewers really needed the program to be replace with its predecessor.
The author also points that due the late-night programs increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news, the station is loosing advertising contracts with the local businesses. This agains is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear colleration between loosing advertising contracts and increased time to national news. To illustrate further, the local business doesn't want their advertisement to be showing during the late-night news program or they want to show their advertisement in some new time slot or they would have found an alternate source of adverisement. If argument had provided evidence that because of the increased national news coverage in late night news program caising fall in advertisement contracts then it would ghave been a lot more convincing to the reader.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpusuassive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear concreate evidence, perhaps by a detailed analysis of the claim. Finally, to better assess the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about why the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...which it could be evaluated. To support this conclusions the author reasons to resto...
^^^^
Line 1, column 569, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...le support for the authors conclusions. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 71, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'amounts'?
Suggestion: amounts
...dily assumes that there are substantial amount of viewers of the late-night news progr...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 203, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun amount seems to be countable; consider using: 'few amounts'.
Suggestion: few amounts
... much solid ground. For example, only a few amount of viewers really watch late night show...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 354, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s coverage during that particular time. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ith the local businesses. This agains is a weak and unsupported claim as it does ...
^^
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... illustrate further, the local business doesnt want their advertisement to be showing ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cing to the reader. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpusuassive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, really, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1960.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21276595745 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78743198095 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48670212766 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1390224688 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.437429189379 0.218282227539 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150377322976 0.0743258471296 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148275003371 0.0701772020484 211% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264712873309 0.128457276422 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107803914939 0.0628817314937 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 339, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...which it could be evaluated. To support this conclusions the author reasons to resto...
^^^^
Line 1, column 569, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...le support for the authors conclusions. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 71, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'amounts'?
Suggestion: amounts
...dily assumes that there are substantial amount of viewers of the late-night news progr...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 203, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun amount seems to be countable; consider using: 'few amounts'.
Suggestion: few amounts
... much solid ground. For example, only a few amount of viewers really watch late night show...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 354, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...s coverage during that particular time. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 215, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ith the local businesses. This agains is a weak and unsupported claim as it does ...
^^
Line 3, column 412, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... illustrate further, the local business doesnt want their advertisement to be showing ...
^^^^^^
Line 4, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...cing to the reader. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpusuassive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, really, so, then, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1960.0 2260.96107784 87% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21276595745 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78743198095 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 183.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48670212766 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 607.5 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.1390224688 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.5 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.437429189379 0.218282227539 200% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.150377322976 0.0743258471296 202% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.148275003371 0.0701772020484 211% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.264712873309 0.128457276422 206% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107803914939 0.0628817314937 171% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.9 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 84.0 98.500998004 85% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.