In the argument, the author comes to a conclusion that the television station should restore weather and local news program in order to attract more viewers and advertisements. Two evidences are provided by the author, firstly, the television station received more complaints about weather and local news programs; secondly, there were less advertising revenues. However, evidences are not convincing in several aspects to prove the conclusion.
To begin with, the author argues that most of the complaints received from viewers were related to weather and local news after cutting the time for those programs. Nevertheless, the author does not point out the specific number and the total percentage of the complaints. Through a vague description, rather than definite number, we can not judge whether a large number of viewers expect to watch more programs of weather and local news. Thus, it is hard to evaluate if increase the time of weather and local news programs will attract more viewers.
What’s more, the arguer connects the cancelling of the advertising contracts with less weather and local news programs, which is doubtful. There is no evidence in the argument illustrates that the company concealed their advertising because of more national news program. With no cause and effect, less weather and local news programs has no relationship with the advertising contracts. The author needs to provide more evidences about the connection between the two events.
Finally, the author believes that once the television station prolongs the weather and local news programs’ time to its former level, there will be an increase in viewers and advertising revenues, which is incredible. There are no social and culture environments mentioned in the argument, before and after the curtailment of the programs’ time. Thus, we can not verdict if the longer weather and local news program as former level works well. For example, people would like to watch more sports program during the Olympic Games instead of weather programs. Without more evidences provided, the conclusion makes by the author is still suspicious.
In sum, the author needs to provide the exact number of people who complaint about the shortage of weather and local news programs, more details about the connection between the curtailment of the programs and the concealing of the advertising contracts, as well as the environment of the audiences watching television programs. Unless more evidences are provided, we can not reach the conclusion which the author points out.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- should be about the contents of the complaints.
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 18 15
No. of Words: 403 350
No. of Characters: 2096 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.48 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.201 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.61 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 162 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 46 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.226 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.421 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.145 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 357, Rule ID: LARGE_NUMBER_OF[1]
Message: Specify a number, remove phrase, or simply use 'many' or 'numerous'
Suggestion: many; numerous
...finite number, we can not judge whether a large number of viewers expect to watch more programs o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, however, if, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, thus, well, as for, for example, as well as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 28.8173652695 38% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2172.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 403.0 441.139720559 91% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.38957816377 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48049772903 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78585023342 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 179.0 204.123752495 88% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.444168734491 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 650.7 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0745762199 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.666666667 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3888888889 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.72222222222 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.34932121192 0.218282227539 160% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131030337854 0.0743258471296 176% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0885395845929 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.226185786516 0.128457276422 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0762816322801 0.0628817314937 121% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => 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: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.25 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => 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: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.