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.
In the article, stating several data about the jazz fans in Monroe, the author argues that opening a jazz club would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Although it seems plausible at first glance, the lack of evidence and the logical flaws lead me to question the validity of his argument.
First of all, the author stated another jazz club is 65miles away. But, this distance may not be a problem for some fans who enjoy jazz performances. For instance, there would be some convenient and fast transportation system such as a high-speed railway or express bus, which can help the jazz fans to move to the previous nearest jazz club. If so, it is possible that people in Monroe already have been visiting the jazz club that is 65miles away. Therefore, to validate his argument, the author needs to provide more evidence about the transportation systems between the cities.
Second, in the article, the author assumes that jazz is extremely popular in Monroe. And he quoted the number of people who attended Monroe's annual jazz festival last summer to argue his claim. However, this data is not enough to evaluate the popularity of jazz in Monroe. For example, famous guest artists might participate in the festival exceptionally last summer, or there might be many promotions for participants of the festival. In this case, the number of audiences of the festival last summer could be an aberration. To bolster his claim, the author should present more long-term data about the number of participants of the festival.
Third, the author argues that jazz is very popular in this region since several well-known jazz musicians live in Monroe. However, there is no relationship between the two facts. For instance, the jazz musicians may live in Monroe since the city has convenient transportations or affordable living costs than other cities. To strengthen his opinion, the author has to show more convincing evidence that jazz is popular in Monroe.
Lastly, quoting a nationwide study, the author assumes that jazz fans in Monroe will pay the same amount of money for jazz entertainment. However, he ignores the discrepancy between the nationwide jazz fans and the local jazz fans. Even though the typical jazz fan in other regions spends much money on jazz entertainment, the local jazz fans would not have willing to pay for that kind of entertainment. For example, jazz fans in Monroe may prefer to listen to radio programs like 'Jazz Nightly' than buying jazz albums or joining the live jazz club. If so, the author's claim that a new jazz club would be highly profitable is not convincing. In addition, the author argues that the new business that opens a new jazz club is highly profitable in Monroe. Even if his thought is reasonable currently, other investors also may have the same idea. In this case, C-Note would not have the local market all to itself in the future. To ensure the author's opinion, it could be helpful carrying some surveys about the market circumstances and characteristics of customers in Monroe.
In conclusion, the author's argument has many flaws and not enough evidence. To bolster his opinion, the author should provide more evidence about the other possible competitors in Monroe, long-term data of annual festival participants, and the precise evaluation that includes benefit-cost analysis.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 28 15
No. of Words: 551 350
No. of Characters: 2716 1500
No. of Different Words: 223 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.845 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.929 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.634 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 201 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.679 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.831 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.354 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.538 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.143 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 941, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... to itself in the future. To ensure the authors opinion, it could be helpful carrying s...
^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tomers in Monroe. In conclusion, the authors argument has many flaws and not enough ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, second, so, then, therefore, third, well, as to, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, kind of, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2795.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07259528131 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72225287266 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 231.0 204.123752495 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.419237749546 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 855.0 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 11.0 4.22255489022 261% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 28.0 19.7664670659 142% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.2822725765 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 99.8214285714 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6785714286 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.35714285714 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.279453654986 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.090732441008 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0780762652153 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.1525928391 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0902711634761 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.79 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.