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."
The argument concludes to attract more viewer news program rather than weather and local news. The argument while concluding asserts that due to decline in viewer in local news, advertising revenues may also lose its potential gain. For that author assumes to expand coverage of weather and local news on all news programs. To support this conclusion author has mentioned premises as comparing past year viewers devotion higher in national rather local news. Also author have mentioned complaints regarding station coverage. Equally gave emphasis on advertising cancellation due to fewer viewers. However, careful examination of evidences reveals that, it provides weak claim.
Firstly, the argument assumes that viewers are more passionate on national news rather than weather covering and local news which have weak and unsupported assumption. In this view, author assumes devoted interest of viewers over the past years, which does not explicitly, justifies the statement. For instance, viewers may have changed their habitual activities then and now, or late night news has shifted their timed-telecast in day-time which may have reduced total allocated time of viewers in night time. To look at another way, survey done in past year may not result same this year too. Furthermore, this argument does not seem to have potential acceptable based poorly reasoned.
Secondly, the argument claims to have most of the complaints were concerned with station’s coverage and local news which lack legitimate evidentiary support. In that case, author fails to identify associated viewers habituating area which may be far from the coverage and may have disturbance in signaling the networking system. In other words, author claims most of the complaints were from coverage maintenance but fails to summit other complaints which may have prior reason for declining viewer interests. Moreover, this argument would have been more convincing if author was able to give cogent reasoning.
Thirdly, the argument argues that business people are cancelling their advertising contracts due to decline in viewer time in local news conveying the distorted view. For instance, businesses may have potential marketing strategy or advertising media to uplift their business. Notably author does not give any other specific reason for cancelling contracts. Moreover, argument can be considered unsubstantiated without strong assumptions.
In synopsis, author argument does not seem to have legitimate and cogent assumptions author must give persuasive premises to strengthen argument. To buttress this argument author may have asserts some valid facts to attract more viewers coverage of weather and local must be done.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 410 350
No. of Characters: 2245 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.5 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.476 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.639 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 177 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.712 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.353 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 460, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...n higher in national rather local news. Also author have mentioned complaints regard...
^^^^
Line 1, column 526, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Equally,
... complaints regarding station coverage. Equally gave emphasis on advertising cancellati...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 230, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'viewers'' or 'viewer's'?
Suggestion: viewers'; viewer's
...sserts some valid facts to attract more viewers coverage of weather and local must be d...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, look, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, while, for instance, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 9.0 19.6327345309 46% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2306.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 410.0 441.139720559 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.6243902439 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72537266388 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.49756097561 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 708.3 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.7474838244 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.818181818 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6363636364 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45454545455 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.298737836154 0.218282227539 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0935879848527 0.0743258471296 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0960992249613 0.0701772020484 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.168145190864 0.128457276422 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.105852795072 0.0628817314937 168% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => 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.