manager to television station.
In this argument, it is concluded that there will be an increase in viewership if the time devoted to weather and local news be again increased back to their former level. The conclusion is supported with the evidence that there is an increase in complaints from viewers regarding the coverage of weather and local news and there is a decrease in local advertisement on the late-night news program. Though this conclusion might be correct, there are some important evidences that should be evaluated without which the conclusion does not hold water. Following are the 3 evidences necessary to support the argument.
Firstly, it is important to analyze the viewer complaints received. The argument mentions that the complaints were regarding the station's coverage of weather and local news but does not give any evidence about the quantity of such complaints. It might be possible that only few people had some issue with the news. Moreover, it is possible that the complaints were not about the decrease of local or weather news but about the quality of local news. The argument does not give any evidence about what the complaints were. Therefore, evidence regarding the quantity of complaints and the what the complaints talked about is necessary. If there were few complaints, then the conclusion does not hold water.
Secondly, an evidence is needed to show a direct relationship between the decrease in local news broadcast and the decrease in advertisement. It might be possible that the local businesses cancelled their contracts because they found an alternate cheap source for their advertisement. If that is true, this weakens the conclusion derived from the decrease in advertisements. Therefore, an evidence is required to analyze the cancellation of contracts.
Finally, an evidence is required which shows that an increase in time devoted to weather and local news will increase the viewership. The arguments fails to show any relationship between the views and the type of news broadcasted. It might be possible that people have shifted to online news and have started to watch news on youtube. If that is the case then increasing the time for local news would not necessarily increase the viewership.
To conclude, the evidence regarding the quantity of complaints, relationship between advertisements and the type of news broadcasted, and relationship between local news and viewership is required without which the conclusion does not hold water.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 395 350
No. of Characters: 2034 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.458 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.149 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.826 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 138 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 127 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.905 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.65 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.564 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.107 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 130, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's
... that the complaints were regarding the stations coverage of weather and local news but ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 587, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rding the quantity of complaints and the what the complaints talked about is nece...
^^
Line 7, column 149, Rule ID: AGREEMENT_SENT_START[1]
Message: You should probably use 'fail'.
Suggestion: fail
... increase the viewership. The arguments fails to show any relationship between the vi...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, firstly, if, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2082.0 2260.96107784 92% => OK
No of words: 395.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.27088607595 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45809453852 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92178003792 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 142.0 204.123752495 70% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.359493670886 0.468620217663 77% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 639.9 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 50.9900970778 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.1 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.75 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6 5.70786347227 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => 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: 0.00937081318681 0.218282227539 4% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.00382139302729 0.0743258471296 5% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0166570660295 0.0701772020484 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.00468307915533 0.128457276422 4% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00936615831066 0.0628817314937 15% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.38 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 98.500998004 71% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.