"For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Given such developments, some city commissioners argue that the symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget."
The author claims that the funding for the symphony can be eliminated from next year’s budget. However, to access the efficacy of the claims, some questions want answers.
To begin with, the author mentioned that the private contributions of the symphony increased by 200. But the author didn’t mention the origin portion of private contributions. For instance, if the origin portion of private contributions Is account for 10% of total contributions, then even if it’s doubled last year, the portion of private contributions is only 20%, far from fully self-supporting the symphony. Therefore, the author should clarify the origin portion of private contributions, in order to using this data as evidence.
But it is also worth considering that the attendance at the symphony’s concerts in the park series doubled can made profit, allowing the symphony to be fully self-supporting. The author failed to indicate that whether there will be an entrance fee for in-the-park series or not. Since the symphony will be played publicly, the desire for people to pay might decreased. Hence, there is no reason for us to believe that the attendance of in-the-park series can made profit. Furthermore, become a supportive evidence for eliminate the funding for the symphony.
Last but not least, the author mentioned that due to the symphony has announced an increase in ticket prices for next year, with the expectation of the ticket selling will increase, the author claims that this will be a reason for city to stop funding the symphony. However, the author didn’t notice the potential consequence of increase ticket prices, which is the attendance might drop dramatically, and result in the lowering of profit. In conclusion, this reason still needs further statement in order to be a strong reason for city to stop funding.
To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that the city can stop funding the symphony, because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lead strong support to what the author maintains. To make it more convincing, he would have to demonstrate that the origin portion of private contributions, and whether the in-the-park series sales tickets or not, last, whether the increase prices of ticket will affect the attendance or not. As a result, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...es can made profit. Furthermore, become an supportive evidence for eliminate the f...
^^
Line 9, column 415, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...ther the increase prices of ticket will effect the attendance or not. As a result, if ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, still, then, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20716112532 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88963625923 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.46547314578 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 615.6 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.7867678189 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.764705882 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.11764705882 5.70786347227 142% => 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 : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.334051972333 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115263366853 0.0743258471296 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0938404358031 0.0701772020484 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191662388269 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0765629226674 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 493, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...es can made profit. Furthermore, become an supportive evidence for eliminate the f...
^^
Line 9, column 415, Rule ID: AFFECT_EFFECT[6]
Message: Did you mean 'affect'?
Suggestion: affect
...ther the increase prices of ticket will effect the attendance or not. As a result, if ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, still, then, therefore, for instance, in conclusion, as a result, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2036.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20716112532 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88963625923 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.46547314578 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 615.6 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.7867678189 57.8364921388 105% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.764705882 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.11764705882 5.70786347227 142% => 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 : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.334051972333 0.218282227539 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115263366853 0.0743258471296 155% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0938404358031 0.0701772020484 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.191662388269 0.128457276422 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0765629226674 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 83.0 98.500998004 84% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.