For the past year, as part of an effort to broaden our supporter base, our Folk on the Air program has allocated less time to traditional American folk music and more time to Latino music and world music. In recent months, many long-term supporters of our station have written to complain about what they describe as the un-American bias of the program. In addition, the local newspaper has published a recent editorial critical of our shift in programming. Therefore, in order to forestall any further adverse publicity for the station and to avoid the loss of additional listener-supporters, we should discontinue our current emphasis on Latino and world music and restore the time devoted to traditional American folk music to its former level
In the following argument, the author claims that the public radio station must focus on traditional American folk songs and discontinue their emphasis on latino and worlds music. The author cites that they receive complain from customer and face critics from newspaper as well in conducting programms of latino music and world music. At first glance of argument, it seems plausible as the author has cited a various evidences to support a conclusion. However, after doing the meticulous analysis of the argument, there are singnificant underlying flaws that undermines the realibility of the conclusion pronounced by the author.
First of all, the argument readily assume that lonh term supporter complain about radio programme that conducted by radio station. This is merely an assumption withot any solid ground. The author fails to mention here how many complain they have received about that. Moreover, on what basis listener are consider as long term supporter or short term supporter? If the argument explicitly stated that number of complain that are receive from listener and percentage of complain then argument would have been more convincing. If there is only few percentage of people complain about then it will weaken otherwise if large number of complain are receive by radio station it will strengthen the argument.
Secondly, the author point out another evidence here, the local newspaper has published a recent editorial ctitical to shift in programming. This is another hole in the argument. One the basis of just one local newspaper we can not determine about people preference. There might be a case to obtain attention from peoplr newpaper publish such article. If the argument has provided a shreds of evidences that include with proper authencity about article then it will be more pronouncing. Stated in this way, the argument reveals several instances of poor reasoniong and ill-defined terminology.
Thirdly, the author says in order to prevent such critics from the people and to retain a attention of the people, they are going to emphasis more on american traditional music than latino and world music. However, he did not mentioned about any information reagrding how many people actually wants to change radio programme. If the radio station had survey about personal preferences about the songs that people wants to hear in the radio with proper authnetic data then only the argument sounds more pronouncing. We can not evaluate to what to do by considering poor instances.
In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the argument, the author must have to provide coda evidences. In regard to this argument, most arduous issue that needs to be aroused is to confirm whether the argument based on the proper statiscal data and authentic evidences. Furthermore, what are the source of primary and secondary data? Without this informations, the argument feels so arbitary and wistful thinking rather than substantial evidences. Thus, depending upon the realibility of evidences and statistical data, the argument can be buttress or undermine.
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: 26 15
No. of Words: 493 350
No. of Characters: 2558 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.712 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.189 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.654 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 195 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 70 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.962 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.547 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.302 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 418, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'evidence'?
Suggestion: evidence
...sible as the author has cited a various evidences to support a conclusion. However, after...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 47, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...of all, the argument readily assume that lonh term supporter complain about radio...
^^
Line 5, column 306, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'considered'.
Suggestion: considered
...t. Moreover, on what basis listener are consider as long term supporter or short term su...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 408, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e argument explicitly stated that number of complain that are receive from listen...
^^
Line 5, column 431, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'received'.
Suggestion: received
...tated that number of complain that are receive from listener and percentage of complai...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 544, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun percentage seems to be countable; consider using: 'few percentages'.
Suggestion: few percentages
... been more convincing. If there is only few percentage of people complain about then it will w...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 353, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...m peoplr newpaper publish such article. If the argument has provided a shreds of e...
^^
Line 9, column 382, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a shred' or simply 'shreds'?
Suggestion: a shred; shreds
...h article. If the argument has provided a shreds of evidences that include with proper a...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 89, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...h critics from the people and to retain a attention of the people, they are going...
^
Line 13, column 227, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'mention'
Suggestion: mention
...no and world music. However, he did not mentioned about any information reagrding how man...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 327, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...tually wants to change radio programme. If the radio station had survey about pers...
^^
Line 17, column 371, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
... of primary and secondary data? Without this informations, the argument feels so arb...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, in conclusion, first of all, in regard to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 28.0 16.3942115768 171% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2627.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.32860040568 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75112781474 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488843813387 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 823.5 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 46.5887839818 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.038461538 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.9615384615 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.96153846154 5.70786347227 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 12.0 5.25449101796 228% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 18.0 6.88822355289 261% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.119501158973 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0342251935247 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.056474755784 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0730197142688 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0578799004433 0.0628817314937 92% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
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: 13.63 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 98.500998004 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.