Over the past year, our late-news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.
The author of this memorandum stated that complaints from viewers were regarding weather and local news and linked it with the increment of the national news' time. He built his conclusion based on assumptions that local companies withdrew their advertisement's contract. Thus, he suggested retrieving the original timetable of the late news program. Before this suggestion can be evaluated, three questions must be answered:
First of all, what were viewers complaining about? There are many possibilities other than the dedicated time, that can make spectators protest. For instance, the content of weather news could be insufficient, local news missed an important event or a mistake was made during the daily forecast of temperature. If any of these examples has authenticity, the whole argument would be weakened, as the time devoted to weather and local news would not be the main cause for complaints.
Secondly, what is the status of the station's popularity? Another shallow linkage is between the time portion of national news and the abolition of advertisement's contracts. If I were a company, that I want to market my product, I would have selected the most popular TV station. Thus, local businesses might abort their contracts, if they saw that, the station's publicity is sinking. To understand this part better, an investigation, feedback or a survey is required to the main reason for abolishing the contracts.
Finally, who are the viewers? The reach of the TV station may reach a national level, therefore national news might seem more interesting to the observer. For example, if the TV station is broadcasting a national sport event, this show would be interesting, if the channel is popular in the country. Local businesses, on the other hand, would look for a TV station with a local scope. If this possibility holds any truth, the whole argument may not seem valid.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands, is considerably flawed, because it relies on unwarranted assumptions. If this argument to be correctly evaluated, the author may consider answering the three above questions, only then it would be possible to fully assess the argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
need to argue the conclusion:
Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 350 350
No. of Characters: 1766 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.325 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.046 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.847 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.939 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 37, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's
... Secondly, what is the status of the stations popularity? Another shallow linkage is ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 354, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'stations'' or 'station's'?
Suggestion: stations'; station's
... their contracts, if they saw that, the stations publicity is sinking. To understand thi...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 32.0 55.5748502994 58% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1827.0 2260.96107784 81% => OK
No of words: 350.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32530772707 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96215034964 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.551428571429 0.468620217663 118% => OK
syllable_count: 556.2 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8277185155 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 96.1578947368 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4210526316 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.42105263158 5.70786347227 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.3141712338 0.218282227539 144% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.092898917894 0.0743258471296 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100767886797 0.0701772020484 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171459659167 0.128457276422 133% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103414687607 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.0 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.