The argument states that to prevent a city budget deficit without threatening the success of the symphony, the city of Grandview should eliminate its funding for the Grandview symphony from next year's government budget. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the case relies on assumptions that by increasing the ticket price
for next year, they can prevent a city budget deficit for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that by increasing the ticket price for next year would the amount would commensurate the budget deficit. This statement is stretched not substantive in any way. For example, in the city of XYZ, during their symphony, the finance team carried out a detailed analysis, such as how much the price should be increased so that the expenses can be eliminated from next year's budget. Clearly, without proper investigation and stating that increasing the ticket price would commensurate, the budget deficit is vague. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that this should be the amount by which the ticket price should be increased so that the amount will commensurate the budget deficit.
Second, the argument claims that the private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent, and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. This is again a feeble and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of people who have contributed and the number of people who have actually attended if the case had provided the evidence that the total number of people contributed. Overall contribution from one family or contribution per head. then the situation would have been much more convincing.
Finally, by how much the price should be increased so that the amount can commensurate the budget deficit, and How many people contributed, what is the per head contribution. Without knowing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and is, therefore, unconvincing, and it could considerably strengthen if the author had provided all the relevant facts. To access a particular situation, it is essential to have knowledge of all the contributing factors.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 400 350
No. of Characters: 2053 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.472 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.132 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.79 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 159 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 114 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.106 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.597 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 196, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...ng for the Grandview symphony from next years government budget. Stated in this way, ...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 517, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Then
...om one family or contribution per head. then the situation would have been much more...
^^^^
Line 8, column 107, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...unt can commensurate the budget deficit, and How many people contributed, what is...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, first, hence, if, second, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 39.0 55.5748502994 70% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2109.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 399.0 441.139720559 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.28571428571 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.46933824581 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92894219729 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 204.123752495 92% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471177944862 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 639.0 705.55239521 91% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
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: 65.3722902473 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.058823529 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4705882353 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.23529411765 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.110146635666 0.218282227539 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0396843142145 0.0743258471296 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.055576003085 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0607244922784 0.128457276422 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0489260495484 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 13.7 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.