“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 time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station’s coverage of local and weather news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news programs have just cancelled 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.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The above argument is an attempt to link the loss of advertising contracts and increased complaints from viwers, with the decrease in time devoted to weather and local news. According to the author, the move by the late-night news program to devote more time to national news at the cost of local and weather news has resuted in the withdrawal of local businesses from advertising during their news hour. It has also received various complaints from their viewers. He goes on to conclude that the only way to amend these shortcomings is by restoring the rime devoted to weather and local news. However, the author has made a number of assumtions to support his claim.
While the author talks about the increase in time of the national news and the consequent decrease in time for local and weather news, he doesn't specify the exact minutes or seconds that have been cut off. The time reduced could as well be just a few seconds, which might not even be noticed by the viewers. Such neglible change in time is not bound to make any difference to the viewers.
According to the author, a number of complaints were received during that period were regarding the local and weather news. Once again the author fails to specify or provide numerical data for his claims. While the complaints could have been numerically huge, the author does not consider the possibility that it could be negligible when compared to the entire viewership. Actual data and statistics showing the complaints as a percentage of the entire number of viewers would have strengthened his argument. Also, the author is vague about the nature of complaints received. There are chances that the complaints could have been about the actual quality going in to the show rather than the running time. The author has entirely skipped this line of reasoning.
One other baseless assumption is the local businesses withdrawing their advertisement deals. The author has skipped the various other possibilities that could have caused this to happen. The local businesses might have struck a better deal with other news channels, or might be going through a financial crisis that investing in a late night program might not have seemed necessary. To jump to a conclusion about the dip in advertising without considering other reasons, and rather basing claims on vague evidence is unconvincing and dubious.
The author's line of thought is not cogent and has failed to prove his point through logival means. He is talking on the basis of his assumptions and hasn't provided enough evidence to support his views. Data and statistics showing the actual dip in viewership or the fall in revenue would have been better ways to base his claim. In short the author has failed to substantiate the key points and supply relevant evidence to prove his claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 139, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... in time for local and weather news, he doesnt specify the exact minutes or seconds th...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 150, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hasn't
...ing on the basis of his assumptions and hasnt provided enough evidence to support his...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, regarding, second, so, then, well, while, in short
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2346.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 4.94936708861 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.57555797937 2.78398813304 93% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.449367088608 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 717.3 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.0620794214 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.0 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.6086956522 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.0 5.70786347227 53% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.29051082727 0.218282227539 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0837616483431 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.110202005774 0.0701772020484 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172592041129 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.138607167627 0.0628817314937 220% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.43 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.