Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this 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 canceled 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 our coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
Given the circumstances, it seems very plausible to expand coverage of weather and local news in order to avoid losing audiences and revenue for news program. However, this seems to be based on the assumptions that are mostly self-proclaimed rather than predicated on rational reasoning, which creates doubt on the success of this future plan.
Firstly, the argument mentions that many complaints from the viewers are “concerned with station’s coverage of weather and local news”; nowhere does it mention that those complaints were related to quantity of local news and weather news broadcasted by the channel. It might be possible that costumers were dissatisfied with quality of weather program and local news shown in the television; most of the weather prediction made might have proved wrong or the channel might have broadcasted local news that were not in alignment with general sentiment of public. Had these causes been the part of complaints of locals, it would be a futile attempt to rise up the coverage of weather and local news.
Similarly, the argument also mentions that local business that used to advertise on late-night news program have stopped doing so after the television dwindled amount of local news and weather coverage. But, the argument doesn’t provide any concrete evidence to corroborate this assumption. It might have been that, the local business, always hungry for wider coverage, found next source that would have provided them with a very broad audience, or there might have been several faults (not related to local news or weather news) such as timing, quality or anything made by television itself while broadcasting advertisement, that would have dissuaded local business. Had these been the faults of TV, would it bring any major changes in amount of revenue after increasing the coverage of local news and weather news?
In the same way, the argument claims that plunge in revenue and audience was majorly due to lack of coverage of weather and local news in late-night broadcast, but it is planning to increase coverage of these in all news program. This discrepancy in cause of a problem and its potential solution might invite detrimental consequences to TV channel. There might have been many day-program that were preferred by the audience (more than local news or weather coverage), and if the TV channel removes them to fit expansion of its coverage, it might put away majority of audience, who liked those day-program. So, it is better to take costumer survey to know the extent of expansion of local news and weather coverage.
Finally, though from bird-eye view it may seem plausible to expand coverage of local news and weather to increase revenue and audience, myriads of assumption lurking behind the decision can easily create doubt on its success. So, it is better to carry out proper study to verify the rationality of these assumptions, and then only take then required action.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 482 350
No. of Characters: 2403 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.686 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.985 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.569 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 32.133 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.187 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.426 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.637 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.147 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, similarly, so, then, while, such as, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2482.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 481.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16008316008 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68313059816 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7342473855 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465696465696 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 768.6 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 77.6100222623 57.8364921388 134% => OK
Chars per sentence: 165.466666667 119.503703932 138% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.0666666667 23.324526521 137% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.06666666667 5.70786347227 124% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.347731400396 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.140910788153 0.0743258471296 190% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0881722233919 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211758534253 0.128457276422 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0777439133723 0.0628817314937 124% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.9 14.3799401198 131% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.0 48.3550499002 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.24 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 98.500998004 108% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => 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.