The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with the station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, several local businesses that used to run advertisements during our late-night news program have just cancelled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand the coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
In this memorandum, the author assumes a fundamental connection between local new coverage and viewship but presents an argument that requries further evidence.
The author does not state how much increased time has been given to national news coverage, making it unknown if such an increase in time is substantial or if it is too small for most viewers to notice. The author also states that most complaints in the past year concern local news and weather coverage but does not disclose the nature of these complaints. In their argument, the author implies that the complaints concern the time of local news and weather coverage but does not actually describe what the complaints are about. The author's current expression of these complaints leaves the complaints open to interpretation about whether these complaints may concern other issues with local news like content or method of delivery. If the author wishes to make the connection between time local news and viewer complaints, they must disclose further information about the content of such complaints.
The author also attempts to explain that loss of local business advertising is caused by this decrease in local news coverage but fails to make an explicit connection between the two. In reality, the loss of local business advertising could be caused by a number of other reasons, such as business dynamics or change in business model. The author also does not disclose how many businesses have canceled advertising on the news program, leaving the possibility that as little as two businesses have stopped advertising out of a pool of potentially thousands of businesses. In order to validate this argument, the author must disclose the cause of local businesses cancelling advertising as well as numbers and statistics of how many businesses have canceled advertising due to the decrease of local news coverage.
In the final statement, the author states that restoring time for local news and weather coverage will increase viewership and reduce revenue loss. The author, however, does not present any evidence such as polling that increased local news time would bring back past viewers or attract new viewers. The author also makes an unsubstantiated connection between increasing local news coverage and reducing revenue loss. Even if increased local news coverage were proven to increase viewership, viewership is not the only factor affecting revenue and is not explicitly connected to increasing revenue. This argument fails to consider other factors concerning revenue including expenses needed for local news coverage as well as other business workings outside of local news coverage and viewership. In order to make this argument, the author should include evidence of a clear connection between future viewership and local news coverage as well as business or numerical evidence that viewership and local news coverage will in fact reduce revenue loss.
While the author's stated argument in favor of increased local news coverage may be valid, the argument in its current state does not present enough evidence to be fully convincing. With the addition of details and evidence of viewers' opinions and the the news program's business practices, the current memorandum can be bolstered to create a complete, more convincing argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.0 out of 6
Category: Very Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2750 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.248 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.669 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 214 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 177 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 129 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.111 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.082 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.889 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.45 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.655 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.236 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 248, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...ls and evidence of viewers opinions and the the news programs business practices, the c...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 248, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...ls and evidence of viewers opinions and the the news programs business practices, the c...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, may, so, well, while, in fact, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2797.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 524.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33778625954 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7844588288 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72867597942 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.398854961832 0.468620217663 85% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 881.1 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
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: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 34.6877161877 57.8364921388 60% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 155.388888889 119.503703932 130% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.1111111111 23.324526521 125% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.66666666667 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => 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: 0.268190075564 0.218282227539 123% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.122293908335 0.0743258471296 165% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0391908226458 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15097400606 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0659337616019 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.3 14.3799401198 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => 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.