"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with the station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, several local businesses that used to run advertisements during our late-night news program have just cancelled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand the coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
In an editorial, it is stated that, in order to attract more viewership to the late night news program and to prevent further decline of advertisement revenues, an expansion of the weather and local news coverage on all news program should be made. This conclusion was made based on the complaints received from viewers who were concerned about the station's broadcast on weather and local news, and also due to the cancellation of several local business advertisements that used to run during the late night news program. However, before this recommendation can be evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First of all, what are were the reasons for the complaints by those watching? It is likely that those laying complains were just a little fraction of the news listeners and were merely bothered about the presentation pattern of the weather news rather than the actual news. For instance, in the past, the weather ad local news were broadcasted by two people, one whom exchanged pleasantries and talked abit about recent happenings, but now the forecaster just goes straight to the news. Furthermore, the author was not lucid enough to affirm how much criticism was actually received from those watching, it may have been just two people, who thought the way the news were read did not seem appropriate to them. If the above mentioned scenarios are true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, were the number of local businesses who called off their contracts stated? In other words can the number of contracts that were annulled really affect the late night news? It is possible that contracts were cancelled not because the weather and local news were not aired, perhaps due to costing. Maybe, the broadcasting company increased the amount they charge for advertisements and these local firms could not keep up with the new charges and consequently did not renew their agreement. Moreover, there may be a likelihood that the justification for aborting the advertisement contract was because the local business had a premonition that the company had lost a lot of viewers hence, not many individuals will watch their advert and get to know about the services they render. If the above reasons are true and valid, then the original argument does not hold water.
Thirdly, how is the expansion of the weather and local news coverage going to draw the attention of more viewers? It is likely that broadening of the coverage for weather and local broadcast may not make people to view the television channel as it is mainly for weather forecast and what usually catches the attention of spectators is how lively and interesting a show is. For example, a reality television will have more viewership than a so called weather forecast. Therefore, there may not be a certainty of gaining the attention of spectators back. If the above stated is true, then the argument does not hold water.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands is considerably flawed due to its reliance on unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide answers to the three questions above and provide more evidence then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the recommendation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 531 350
No. of Characters: 2614 1500
No. of Different Words: 239 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.8 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.923 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.722 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 178 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 100 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 65 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.356 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.857 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.518 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.101 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 24, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'been'.
Suggestion: been
...be answered. First of all, what are were the reasons for the complaints by those...
^^^^
Line 9, column 209, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...estions above and provide more evidence then it will be possible to evaluate the via...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, consequently, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, really, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, for example, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2678.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 531.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04331450094 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78716216198 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 204.123752495 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472693032015 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 825.3 705.55239521 117% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 72.8465289499 57.8364921388 126% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.523809524 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2857142857 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.619047619 5.70786347227 186% => 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 : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.273081859471 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0814770637247 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0873857261543 0.0701772020484 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147993281882 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0958251430336 0.0628817314937 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 116.0 98.500998004 118% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 12.3882235529 153% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.