"Over the past year, our latenight
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 latenight
news program have just canceled 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."
The author of the above argument contends that there should be an expansion in their coverage of weather and local news on their late night news program in order to increase viewership and local advertisement’s revenue as well. The argument put forth by the author seems coherent at first glance; upon scrutiny, however, the argument extended appears seriously flawed and based on several questionable premises and assumptions.
The most glaring error in the author's line of reasoning is that in order to attract more viewers to their programs, they should expand their weather and local news coverage. Whereas, there is not a single point mentioned which can justify that declined viewership is due to less coverage to weather and local news. Also, the author has not revealed the content of the complaints that whether the complaints are against or for the concerned news programs. In light of these fallacies, the claim seems to be resting on questionable grounds.
Besides, the complaints of the viewers there might be the serious problem in the format of the presentation of weather and local news programs which lead to the non-acceptance of the program and hence resulted in low TRP's. Also, the information forecasted on the program might be wrong on the ground of factual reasoning and moral ethics. This, if true, invalidates the entire argument. The argument certainly lacks legitimate evidential support and seems to have been formed out of thin air.
In addition, the author did not mentioned the actual reason of the cancellation of their advertising contracts with local businesses. There might be any kind of personal disputes in between them. Since there is no viewership on the late night weather and local news programs, the local businesses might have withdrawn their investment on them. We just do not know. The author has failed to determine the actual reasons behind the declining viewership as well as the advertising revenues on their late night programs.
Evidently, the speaker has not thought things through. He should have sought some credible reports and online surveys, instead of relying on those mere observations, to ascertain the gravity of the problem. He should have carefully examined other reasons that could well be responsible for the decline in the viewership of the late night programs. Any conclusion based on irrelevant and insufficient data fails to convince the readers. Therefore, the author needs to largely reconstruct his argument, fix the flaws in his logic and provide explication for his assumptions to validate his contention. Without these changes, the speaker argument to expand their coverage on weather and local news with no convincing reason shall remain questionable, extremely ill constructed and thus unconvincing.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...estionable premises and assumptions. The most glaring error in the authors line ...
^^^
Line 7, column 33, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'mention'
Suggestion: mention
...air. In addition, the author did not mentioned the actual reason of the cancellation o...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'whereas', 'in addition', 'kind of', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.249488752556 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.137014314928 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0961145194274 0.0836205057962 115% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0531697341513 0.0520304965353 102% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0368098159509 0.0272364105082 135% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.120654396728 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0368098159509 0.0416121511921 88% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.85506266161 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0286298568507 0.026700313972 107% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.114519427403 0.113004496875 101% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0224948875256 0.0255425247493 88% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0081799591002 0.0127820249294 64% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2792.0 2731.13054187 102% => OK
No of words: 444.0 446.07635468 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28828828829 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.5903493882 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.380630630631 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.317567567568 0.287650121315 110% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.222972972973 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.148648648649 0.135150697306 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85506266161 2.79052419416 102% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 207.018472906 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 56.6024313876 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 21.1428571429 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5024832396 57.7814097925 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.952380952 141.986410481 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.1428571429 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.666666666667 0.724660767414 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.8996138996 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.79279279279 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284485775156 0.441005458295 65% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0952035596617 0.135418324435 70% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0770767580983 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.540420849778 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.175635267688 0.147661913831 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.119231174352 0.193483328276 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0625385779058 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.504470234333 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0278088008285 0.0774707102158 36% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.216986361524 0.312017818177 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0362420523957 0.0698173142475 52% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.33743842365 60% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.