'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.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence would be needed in order to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The author concludes that in order to avoid losing more advetising revenues, the time time allocated to weather and local news should be restore to its former level. Stated in this way the, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which this could be evaluated. The conclusion is based on the premise that the complaints received by TV station are mostly from viewers concerned with the station's weather and local news, also that local business that used to advertise during late night news program are withdrawing their contracts. The reasoning is logically weak, however, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author provides information that local businesses have just canceled their advertising deal with the TV station. This is merely an assumption made without solid ground. For example, what if local business decided to cancel their contracts because they can not longer affort the contract fee? What if they feel another means of advertising would be more effective? Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly states that the TV station carry out an established survey, and the local business owners told them they are withdrawing their contracts based on the evidence the author gave.
Finally, the author notes that they received more complaints from weather and local news viewers. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little support for the author's conclusion in several respects and raises several skeptical question. For example, what if the complaints is based on the inaccuracy of the weather and local news? Without convicing answer to this question, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more a wishful thing rather than sunstantive evidence.
In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, must provide clear evidence, perharps by way of a reliable survey.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Sentence: The author concludes that in order to avoid losing more advetising revenues, the time time allocated to weather and local news should be restore to its former level.
Error: advetising Suggestion: advertising
Sentence: For example, what if local business decided to cancel their contracts because they can not longer affort the contract fee?
Error: affort Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: Without convicing answer to this question, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more a wishful thing rather than sunstantive evidence.
Error: sunstantive Suggestion: substantive
Error: convicing Suggestion: convincing
Sentence: In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands.
Error: unpersuasive Suggestion: No alternate word
Sentence: To bolster it further, must provide clear evidence, perharps by way of a reliable survey.
Error: perharps Suggestion: perhaps
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- ???
----------------
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/over-past-year-our…
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 334 350
No. of Characters: 1718 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.275 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.144 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.566 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 133 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.875 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.123 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.625 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.348 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.052 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 82, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: time
...id losing more advetising revenues, the time time allocated to weather and local news sho...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 138, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'restored'?
Suggestion: restored
...ted to weather and local news should be restore to its former level. Stated in this way...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 186, Rule ID: THE_PUNCT[1]
Message: Did you forget something after 'the'?
...to its former level. Stated in this way the, the argument fails to mention several k...
^^^^
Line 1, column 691, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument can be ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 599, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ey are withdrawing their contracts based on the evidence the author gave. Fina...
^^
Line 5, column 189, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...that it provides little support for the authors conclusion in several respects and rais...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 482, Rule ID: MORE_A_JJ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'a more wishful'?
Suggestion: a more wishful
... that the claims made by the author are more a wishful thing rather than sunstantive evidence....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 13, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...an sunstantive evidence. In sum, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, hence, however, if, so, for example, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1766.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 334.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2874251497 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.62632027313 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.51497005988 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 534.6 705.55239521 76% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => 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: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.8094526624 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.375 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.875 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.4375 5.70786347227 78% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.199638512717 0.218282227539 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0637724195024 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865002955667 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113798291714 0.128457276422 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104166025509 0.0628817314937 166% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.