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 business manager's memorandum sparks a few questions that should to be answered before following her recommendation. Her recommendation is to restore the time devoted to weather and local news to prevent the loss of any further advertising revenues. Her recommendation is presented with only some of the facts, such as an increase in complaints concerned with the coverage of weather and local news, as well as local businesses cancelling their advertising contracts. Some further evidence is needed, such as: 1. What exactly were the complaints? 2. Do local businesses hold the same complaints, or do they have other issues with the television station? 3. Although the station is losing some viewers and advertising revenue from a certain demographic and certain local companies, was that gain made up for by an increase in global viewership and international firms advertising for the increased time devoted to national news?
In relation to the vague complaint, it is not clear what the complaints attacked: was the coverage of weather and local news too little or was it still too much? Maybe what had happened last year was that viewers had called into the station for complaints concerning the coverage of weather and local news being too high. Possibly, even as the station has reduced time for weather and local news over the past year, it is still too much for these viewers, possibly ones who are much more interested in the big picture news. These uncertainties about the complaints need to be cleared up. If indeed the complaints do ask for more local and weather news, then it would strengthen her recomendation. Otherwise, her recommendation would be extremely weak if the complaints wanted less local and weather news.
Regarding the local businesses' views on this matter, a question that I would ask the businesses is whether they hold the same issues as the station's general viewers. If in fact that the businesses are cancelling their contracts as a result of the same complaints, then that fact would strengthen the manager's argument. However, there could be underlying problems with the station that the local businesses are thinking about when they cancel their contracts. Perhaps the advertising costs have gone up by 3 times this year. Maybe there has been another channel that offers advertising fees at a significant discount to this station. Also, there could be that the economy is in a recession and that is the main driving factor of the recent cancellation of contracts. There are many extraneous factors that could be involved.
Finally, it may be the case that local viewers may be turning away from the channel and local businesses are refusing to advertise with the station. On the other hand, global viewership has gone up and international firms have come in to advertise on the channel. This would mean that advertising revenues have not dropped and everything is actually fine.
As a result, without this evidence, it is hard to assess whether the business manager's recommendation should be taken. The evidence for the clarity of the complaints, local businesses' view on the driving factor behind their contract cancellations, and the gains in national viewership will help one determine the validity of the manager's statement.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 14, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
The business managers memorandum sparks a few questions that ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 296, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...r recommendation is presented with only some of the facts, such as an increase in complaint...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 301, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
...ts, then that fact would strengthen the managers argument. However, there could be under...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 79, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
... is hard to assess whether the business managers recommendation should be taken. The evi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 330, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
... help one determine the validity of the managers statement.
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'finally', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'well', 'in fact', 'such as', 'as a result', 'as well as', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.22905982906 0.25644967241 89% => OK
Verbs: 0.162393162393 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0974358974359 0.0836205057962 117% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0547008547009 0.0520304965353 105% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0324786324786 0.0272364105082 119% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116239316239 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0495726495726 0.0416121511921 119% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87345108032 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0188034188034 0.026700313972 70% => OK
Particles: 0.00512820512821 0.001811407834 283% => OK
Determiners: 0.117948717949 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0222222222222 0.0255425247493 87% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0136752136752 0.0127820249294 107% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3277.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 535.0 446.07635468 120% => OK
Chars per words: 6.12523364486 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80937282943 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.342056074766 0.378187486979 90% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299065420561 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.214953271028 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.143925233645 0.135150697306 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87345108032 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 236.0 207.018472906 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.441121495327 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 51.2994109556 52.1807786196 98% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 19.8148148148 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.1785275768 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.37037037 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8148148148 23.2022227129 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.592592592593 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 49.7213568709 51.9672348444 96% => OK
Elegance: 1.58219178082 1.8405768891 86% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.515575374854 0.441005458295 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.132375534937 0.135418324435 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.103333843909 0.0829849096947 125% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.488502142466 0.58762219726 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.217043810248 0.147661913831 147% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178213836103 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.11077204444 0.0970749176394 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.437003346254 0.42659136922 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.064505535724 0.0774707102158 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.354826415672 0.312017818177 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.077812876451 0.0698173142475 111% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.87684729064 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 24.0 14.657635468 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.