The author argues here about a television station problem with complaints about weather and local news coverage. Stated this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To support this conclusion the author notes that the problem has been solved by a decision of converting back to local and weather news. However careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's recommendation.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that the television program contains no more news related to local events or weather precipitation. This is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, it is possible that the station has found that the number of viewers of that kind of news has decreased and tried to change in order to attract more followers or it might be because of the availability of others stations that are more focused on these news interests. Hence the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated that this television station was the only one that provided local and weather news and now that is doesn't people are starting to complain about it.
The argument readily claims that local advertisers canceled their contracts with the station. This is weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any correlation between weather and local news and advertising business contracts. To illustrate further, business advertising is not only related to local news since even local businesses can display their advertisement during other news or programs and this won't affect their influence or marketing programs. If the argument had provided evidence that advertisers from local businesses consist an essential part in the shares of the station or in contracts terms it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the manager noted that they will devote more time to weather and local news as it was before. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that is provides little credible expectation. For example, what guaranties that the channel will earn again its viewers after they were complaining? and at what expense the channel will restore this kind of news? will it be needing to break contracts with other advertisers in order to do so? Without convincing answers to these questions, the reader is left with the impression that the claims made by the author are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide better concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey about follower's preferences. Finally, to better assess the survey, it would be necessary to know more information about programs watching statistics and what these followers would prefer to see on their television.
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/over-past-year-our…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 472 350
No. of Characters: 2398 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.661 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.081 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.649 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.352 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.526 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.331 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.059 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 462, 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. First of all, the ar...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 486, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...e more focused on these news interests. Hence the argument would have been much more ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 665, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... local and weather news and now that is doesnt people are starting to complain about i...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 303, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: And
...ts viewers after they were complaining? and at what expense the channel will restor...
^^^
Line 7, column 367, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: Will
...channel will restore this kind of news? will it be needing to break contracts with o...
^^^^
Line 7, column 375, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...will restore this kind of news? will it be needing to break contracts with other advertise...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tantive evidence. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, hence, however, if, so, for example, in conclusion, kind of, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 11.1786427146 152% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 61.0 55.5748502994 110% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2445.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 470.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20212765957 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71574804803 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.472340425532 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 705.55239521 107% => 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: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.4117802897 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.428571429 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.380952381 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2380952381 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.204327871751 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636900819286 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0679665667861 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11283004278 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512238459012 0.0628817314937 81% => 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: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 98.500998004 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.