The following was written as a part of an application for a small-business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe.
"A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles away; thus, the proposed new jazz club in Monroe, the C-Note, would have the local market all to itself. Plus, jazz is extremely popular in Monroe: over 100,000 people attended Monroe's annual jazz festival last summer; several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe; and the highest-rated radio program in Monroe is 'Jazz Nightly,' which airs every weeknight at 7 P.M. Finally, a nationwide study indicates that the typical jazz fan spends close to $1,000 per year on jazz entertainment."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
At first glance, it seems that C-Note ought to get the funds from the Monroe city government or financial institutions. The developers, in their letter, mention the new jazz club being able to corner the market due to local popularity for this genre. The application also uses corroborating evidence like the nearest entertainment site being some distance away as well as the high ratings for the weeknight radio program. Upon closer examining, the authors make unwarranted assumptions which require scrutiny; the pertinent facts and data supporting the argument’s claims either render it as still valid or weakens it further. The lender could be making a mistake disbursing the money without carefully deliberating on germane information.
The first anecdote relates to validating the popularity of this category of auditory enjoyment within the area. The memorandum delineates the large audience numbers in last year’s specific festival and the improved indicators for the station. Proof which elaborates on the particular attendances from denizens, as well as their characteristics and preferences facilitates any informed decision: inhabitants elucidate their tastes, choices in primary surveys- a person might feel jazz but drive to another venue because of large community. Also, insights of music program listeners such as their age group, economic qualities and audio consumption habits; gleaning analysis engenders the financing decision whether it includes residents of the town or not.
Another proof comports to the methodology of the nationwide research. The authors of the scholarly paper, contacting them, offering their views on the city people included in the sample. So, the population elements in the study sample incorporates individuals of different regions- if Monroe inhabitants are not inducted in sufficient quantities, then the results cannot be extended to this locality and conclusions about interest and demand for this art form is incorrect.
Finally, the verisimilitude of the reports expounding on the popularity of the nearest site’s client base, economic, preferences by group. The applicants only explain their reasoning that this hub is some miles away, the business model needs closer inspection. For example, if the town people actually visit and spend time and disposable income over there, then the financier has to know by how much. Moreover, the performers and distinct compartmentalization of audience artist choices, tastes, spending patterns and other alternatives require being highlighted from some combination of primary surveys and secondary data.
In conclusion, certain specific pieces of credible factual sources confers perspectives on unwarranted assumptions not readily apparent in the business loan form. Some of them include confirming the interest of this artistic style, the opinions brought out especially from the journal article and the truth of the reports propounding whether or not the nearest musical locality is popular among Monroe people.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 450 350
No. of Characters: 2508 1500
No. of Different Words: 276 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.606 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.573 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.939 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 167 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 119 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.926 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.27 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.039 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 113, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... of auditory enjoyment within the area. The memorandum delineates the large audienc...
^^^
Line 9, column 335, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...nd the truth of the reports propounding whether or not the nearest musical locality is popular...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, if, moreover, second, so, still, then, well, as to, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2576.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 450.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.72444444444 5.12650576532 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6057793516 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00164563918 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 283.0 204.123752495 139% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.628888888889 0.468620217663 134% => OK
syllable_count: 801.9 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.6494263125 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 143.111111111 119.503703932 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.55555555556 5.70786347227 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171617001765 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0450857221622 0.0743258471296 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0374566220325 0.0701772020484 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.087226286819 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0369516332948 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.3550499002 60% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 12.5979740519 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.7 8.32208582834 129% => OK
difficult_words: 166.0 98.500998004 169% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.