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 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 canceled 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 our coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
The business manager is proposing to restore the time previously devoted to weather and local news in order to attract more viewers to avoid losing any more advertising revenues. The evidence he presents to support the proposal is that when the station decreased the broadcast time for weather and local news, the viewers' compaints were mostly regarding this decreased segment. While this proposal may sound plausible, the following additional evidences are needed in order to support the proposal.
Firstly, there is no evidence that the complaints regarding the weather and local news are because of the reduction in length. It could be possible that the viewers are, for instance, unsatisfied with the overall quality of the segment and not the quantity. For example, the weather data provided may be inaccurate or maybe the anchors that cover the local news are biased towards one category of news and ignore the others. In such cases, increasing the length of the segment can prove to be detrimental, instead of alleviating the issue.
Another crucial piece of evidence required is the correlation between the users' complaints and the cancellations of advertising contracts. The author only suggests this proposal assuming that if the viewers' complaints regarding the weather and local news are addressed, it will lead to a halt in the advertising contract cancellations. However, that might not be the case. It could be possible that the advertising agencies have other complaints, maybe, regarding the contents of the late night show itself. Or, perhaps the advertising agencies are having their own problems that have nothing to do with this station's television programs. Unless a clear evidence is presented that can infer the correlation between viewers' complaints and the cancellations, the recommendation cannot proceed.
Also, the author assumes that there if the previous show times are restored, the viewers that had complaint with the changed in the past year will return. It is possible that in this past year, those viewers have found another, perhaps better source of weather and local news and the restoring of previous times will not affect these viewer, thereby maintaining the same viewer count.
Unless all of these evidences can be presented, perhaps with a research study, and these evidences argue in favour of the stated proposal, the proposal cannot be implemented.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 381 350
No. of Characters: 1973 1500
No. of Different Words: 176 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.418 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.178 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.662 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 126 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 81 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.812 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.029 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.338 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 610, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's
...blems that have nothing to do with this stations television programs. Unless a clear evi...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 329, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this viewer' or 'these viewers'?
Suggestion: this viewer; these viewers
...oring of previous times will not affect these viewer, thereby maintaining the same viewer co...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, may, regarding, so, while, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2034.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.33858267717 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74462633752 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.485564304462 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 616.5 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => 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: 42.7389879823 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.125 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8125 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4375 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.242784884065 0.218282227539 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0801343015515 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0757450417212 0.0701772020484 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132461924876 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0834787252591 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => 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: 13.99 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.76 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => 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.