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 weather and local 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.
In the memo, the author mentions that returning to the previous condition with considerable devotion to weather and local news; the station might regain its original status and advertising contracts. However, while the conclusion drawn by the author might hold water, it rests on several unfolded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following three questions must be addressed.
First of all, there might be other news channel competing for more viewers and better weather and local news coverage which have deliberately got the viewers attention. They might have been up to date with the minor local details to major weather upheavals with collectively shorter and fast period of time. They might have established themselves as a veracious news channel among the viewers, who choose to watch over weather details and local news over national news. If such a scenario is true, then the assertion made by the author is significantly hampered.
Secondly, the local businesses that used to advertise in their program might have found a better client with substantially higher price than what the previous one has been offering. Local businesses might get better paid for advertising the other shows than the late-night program which can be a cause for them to end the contracts with the previous station. If such a condition prevails, then the author’s claim is seriously impaired.
Lastly, the station might not be focusing on the major local activities and covering the trivial matter in a pompous way. Similarly, the might be negligent towards the weather update regarding changes and upcoming predictions. The viewers might have lost their interest as the matters and a case the station has covered does not align with the need and expectations of the people. If the same scenario exits, even after allocating a considerable time on local news and weather, the viewers will not be persuaded to watch the station. If this statement proves to be true, then the claim is questioned for its validity.
In conclusion, as it stands, the claim made by the author is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions.
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...overage which have deliberately got the viewers attention. They might have been up to d...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...vals with collectively shorter and fast period of time. They might have established themselves...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 105, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a pompous way" with adverb for "pompous"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ivities and covering the trivial matter in a pompous way. Similarly, the might be negligent towa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, then, thus, while, after all, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1858.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 356.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2191011236 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82495462624 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519662921348 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5741999338 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.125 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8125 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265306276073 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0843318129504 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0896625194383 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132213606167 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103170195454 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 151, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...overage which have deliberately got the viewers attention. They might have been up to d...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 292, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...vals with collectively shorter and fast period of time. They might have established themselves...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 105, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a pompous way" with adverb for "pompous"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...ivities and covering the trivial matter in a pompous way. Similarly, the might be negligent towa...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, lastly, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, then, thus, while, after all, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 37.0 55.5748502994 67% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1858.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 356.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2191011236 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82495462624 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.519662921348 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 557.1 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5741999338 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.125 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.8125 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265306276073 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0843318129504 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0896625194383 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132213606167 0.128457276422 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103170195454 0.0628817314937 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.3799401198 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.32208582834 106% => OK
difficult_words: 93.0 98.500998004 94% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => 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.