"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 author argues here that resotoring the news program's time to weather and local news will help it get back to its former level with the viewers as well as with the advertising contracts. Stated in this way, the argument fails several instances of poor reasoning and key factors on the basis of which it can be evaluated. To justify this argument the author reasons that due to devotion of less time to the local and weather news is actually making the program lose its former level and due to the same reason, they are also losing advertising contracts. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence states that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered unsubstantiated.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that increased time to national news over local and weather news in the late night programme has led to the complaints from the viwers. This is merely an assumption without much solid ground. For example, the complaints from the viewers could be about the quality and content of the show rather than just its duration, whereas the author doesn't mention the nature of complaints. Hence the argument would have been much more compelling if it explicitly stated that the viewers want more time for the shows.
The argument readily claims that the decreased time to the local news has led to the program losing its advertising contracts. However, he does not talk about how many advertisers have actually left and what was the reason that they gave for leaving. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not give a clear picture behind the action. If the argument had provided evidence that the local businesses are cancelling contract because they do not get enough fotage on the programme anymore would have been way more convincing.
Finally the author fails to share the reaction of the viewers for other shows broadcasted during the day. There is not enough evidence by the author to support the argument as he misses several critical aspects and raises several skeptical questions.For example, how many viewers have complained about the programme, what is the real reason behind the local businesses cancelling their advertising contracts etc. Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a facade as they are not supported by substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the claims made by the author if provided with sufficient evidence can be considered credible but with such lacking support the argument is unpersuasive. To bolster it further, the author must provide clear evidence perhaps by way a reliable survey and reason analysis behind the occurings. This would help to better assess the argument and also give a clearer picture to the programme as well as the readers.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- not OK. Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
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.
----------------
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: 477 350
No. of Characters: 2346 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.673 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.918 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.523 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
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: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 15.302 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 102, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'gets'?
Suggestion: gets
... to weather and local news will help it get back to its former level with the viewe...
^^^
Line 1, column 656, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors recommendation. Hence the argument can ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 680, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...support for the authors recommendation. Hence the argument can be considered unsubsta...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 382, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...n just its duration, whereas the author doesnt mention the nature of complaints. Hence...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 423, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...oesnt mention the nature of complaints. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...would have been way more convincing. Finally the author fails to share the reaction ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 251, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: For
... and raises several skeptical questions.For example, how many viewers have complain...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, so, well, whereas, for example, in conclusion, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2391.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 475.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03368421053 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66845742379 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61976294629 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446315789474 0.468620217663 95% => OK
syllable_count: 736.2 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.758202115 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.842105263 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.73684210526 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.196603481434 0.218282227539 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0659026923258 0.0743258471296 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100476411992 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.118023134934 0.128457276422 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0970032563831 0.0628817314937 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 54.56 48.3550499002 113% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.23 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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.