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

The memorandum provided by the business manager may, at first glance, seem like a plausible suggestion. However, after further inspection, one may be able to see that there are multiple holes in the argument provided.

The beginning of the memorandum itself starts on very vague footing. The author does not explain what their viewers concerns were with the station's coverage of weather and local news. Did they want more, or did they just want it to be more engaging? All across the world, television use has been found to be declining due to the increase of popular streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Many people often watch their news on smartphones and having access to local and national news is made much more convenient. There was no quantification of the complaints and how this level differs from complaints received in the past, nor is there a comparison of how this television station is doing in comparison to their counterparts. After deeper inspection, the author may find that all television networks are finding ways to become more accessible in an age where television use is dwindling.

Additionally, the author points to loss in advertising contracts but does not mention the reason. Correlation does not equal causation, so it would be faulty to assume that local businesses are pulling their contracts due to an issue with the late-night news program's viewership, when in reality their decision could have very well been because of their own declining revenues and inability to keep their contracts. Even if these businesses did pull their contracts due to low returns on investment, there is no statement on the amount of local business that have cancelled contracts or if they had been encouraged to advertise during a different time of day. Local businesses are often small and though places like the United States are encouraging support of local businesses, it may not be enough (or make enough sense) to advertise through the television when they could very well have more of an online presence. An online presence could mean anything from a website to active social media pages. Algorithms have also been created on platforms like Instagram that allow viewers to get advertisements based on their interests and be able to be redirected to the business's page. These types of strategies are proving to be more cost-effective and reach more people that any television station ever could.

Furthermore, to conclude by stating that restoring weather and local news to its former level will attract more viewers is a superfluous assumption. Many television stations have moved into more talk show styled news, such as the likes of Trevor Noah and Jon Stewart. These programs talk about national news and in the past decade, have upped the viewership of their respective television stations. There is no evidence yet that would support the idea that weather and local news would yield more viewership or even stabilize advertising revenues.

In conclusion, while the author's suggestion is understandable, there are major reasons why this memorandum is not to be considered. This argument needs to be flushed out by quantifying previous viewership and complaints, as well as their local business advertisers from years past. Finally, the claim of attracting more customers must be supported by evidence from other television stations or by surveying their own, to see if the increase of weather and local news broadcast would lead to any growth in the number of viewers.

Average: 8.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 140, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's their viewers concerns were with the stations coverage of weather and local news. Did...
Line 5, column 26, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's revenues. In conclusion, while the authors suggestion is understandable, there are...

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, well, while, in conclusion, such as, as well as

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 83.0 55.5748502994 149% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2930.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 572.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.12237762238 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79850931026 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494755244755 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 910.8 705.55239521 129% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.8384070965 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.391304348 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8695652174 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.73913043478 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26453634134 0.218282227539 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0761517695816 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559071811186 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152686283117 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.061065910054 0.0628817314937 97% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

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: 23 15
No. of Words: 572 350
No. of Characters: 2880 1500
No. of Different Words: 278 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.89 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.035 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.725 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 87 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.87 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.431 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.29 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.493 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5