From last year onward the local late-night program has shifted their attention to showing more national news over local news and weather. The business manager concludes that to attract more viewers and gain back the lost advertising revenues, they should restore weather and local news showcasing. The arguments that the author provides to validate this conclusion is supported by weak evidence, including aimless correlations, unjustified assumptions and lack evidence; therefore, the author's conclusion is flawed.
Firstly, the author aimlessly correlates that due to shifting from local news to national news they have lost advertisement contracts. There is not evidence presented which show that the lost contract are being given to another local television station. It might be that the local businesses, who had contracts with the television station, have shutdown and no longer require advertisement. If the author were to present evidence that the businesses whose contracts they lost are still open and their advertisements being displayed on another television station, then, the author's argument might gain some merit.
Additional to aimless correlation, the author uses unjustified assumptions to reach the conclusion. The author states that giving more time to national news over weather and local news has created multiple complains from viewers concerning the weather and local news coverage. However, the author does not dictate what kind of complains they are and whether the viewers are from that local area. Did the viewers complain about wanting more weather? Or did the viewers complain about the weather and local news host not doing a proper job? Without clarity on the complaints the author's conclusion is a flaw supported by an assumption. But, if the author was able to procure evidence which suggested that local residents were complaining that they wanted more time for weather and local news then the author's conclusion would gain integrity.
Despite the unjustified assumptions, and aimless correlation the author's conclusion may have some merit if the author is able to provide sufficient statistical evidence. In the event the business manager categories the concerns presented by viewers then based on the analytical results the author's conclusion might be valid. If the results showed that viewers complained about not getting enough time for weather and local news times then the business manager's conclusion is strengthened. However, if it showed statistically that the viewer's concerns were over the network reception during weather and local news, or the host of the two categories then the author's argument would be weakened as the concerns were not against the time period for which the two categories are shown.
As the current conclusion stands it is supported by aimless correlations, unjustified assumptions, and lack of evidence; therefore, as presented currently it can be stated that the conclusion is flawed and debatable. The business manager should procure more statistical evidence, and hence has more work to do for the conclusion to have more validity.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 480 350
No. of Characters: 2590 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.681 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.396 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.73 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 170 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.62 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.399 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.582 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.155 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 487, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tions and lack evidence; therefore, the authors conclusion is flawed. Firstly, the a...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 574, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n another television station, then, the authors argument might gain some merit. Add...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 578, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...? Without clarity on the complaints the authors conclusion is a flaw supported by an as...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 800, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ime for weather and local news then the authors conclusion would gain integrity. Des...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 66, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ssumptions, and aimless correlation the authors conclusion may have some merit if the a...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 291, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...hen based on the analytical results the authors conclusion might be valid. If the resul...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 453, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
... and local news times then the business managers conclusion is strengthened. However, if...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 658, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...the host of the two categories then the authors argument would be weakened as the conce...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, so, still, then, therefore, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2638.0 2260.96107784 117% => OK
No of words: 480.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49583333333 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68069463864 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80821896404 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.420833333333 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 799.2 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.6561067036 57.8364921388 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.9 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.05 5.70786347227 71% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.29351051007 0.218282227539 134% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.113079576202 0.0743258471296 152% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.121435027742 0.0701772020484 173% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175651945222 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0967855279219 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.92 12.5979740519 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.