"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 to 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."
Respond by writing an essay in which you discuss the specific evidence you would need to judge the validity of the argument and explain how this evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In an effort to broaden the supporter base, Folk on the Air program allocated less time to traditional American folk music and more time to Latino music and world music which was faced by criticism in the form of written complaints from many long-term supporters and a critical editorial in the local newspaper. The program based on the assumption, that most of its followers have a negative opinion about their shift from more Americanized music to non-Americanized music, have reached to an easy conclusion that in order to avoid any further public adversity, the program should discontinue the current emphasis on Latino and world music and switch back to the original level without considering various important parameters that are quite critical in deciding the shift.
Firstly, the shift from American folk to Latino and world folk music must have been made on some concrete evidence that considers the public demands. It may be so that people are more interested in world folk music and are hence not able to follow Folk on Air program since it broadcasts only Americanized music. Consequentially, the broadcasters may have thought of incorporating Latino and world folk music on the program. This may have helped them to attract huge new supporters. Henceforth, a survey should be made among all the supporters whether they are completely against or in support of the shift. It is quite likely that the long-term supporters are against the more emphasis on world folk music and may want it to be restricted to an hour or two, instead the conclusion stands on entirely scrapping out the world folk music and switching back to the original level. It is quite plausible that the supporters might want to listen to Americanized music in the peak hours and may prefer other music at different times. A comprehensive research work needs to be made in this area before coming to a final solution.
Next, the critical editorial in the local newspaper could be the opinion of a single person or just a small group. The program broadcasters should get in touch with the local newspaper and extract information regarding the views of various people about that article. It may be so that most of the supporters of the program may be in favor of the shift and they are not the ones coming out. And only the few are critically condemning the change. Evidently, a little more research work on the part of the program broadcasters is quite crucial to come to any conclusion as the program could lose the new customers at the cost of the long-term supporters. It is so because it is quite a huge step to totally go back to original level instead of making a few alterations could help to solve the issue in hand. Hopefully, the broadcasters are able to reach a conclusion that profits both the supporters and the program Folk on Air.
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'regarding', 'so']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.259259259259 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.134502923977 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.103313840156 0.0836205057962 124% => OK
Adverbs: 0.056530214425 0.0520304965353 109% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0253411306043 0.0272364105082 93% => OK
Prepositions: 0.118908382066 0.125424944231 95% => OK
Participles: 0.0409356725146 0.0416121511921 98% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7588260668 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0448343079922 0.026700313972 168% => OK
Particles: 0.00194931773879 0.001811407834 108% => OK
Determiners: 0.12865497076 0.113004496875 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0292397660819 0.0255425247493 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00389863547758 0.0127820249294 31% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2831.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 485.0 446.07635468 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.83711340206 6.12365571057 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.309278350515 0.378187486979 82% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.239175257732 0.287650121315 83% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.171134020619 0.208842608468 82% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.127835051546 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7588260668 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 207.018472906 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.422680412371 0.469332199767 90% => OK
Word variations: 47.4355100778 52.1807786196 91% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 28.5294117647 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Sentence length SD: 97.6899268057 57.7814097925 169% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.529411765 141.986410481 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.5294117647 23.2022227129 123% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.411764705882 0.724660767414 57% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 5.14285714286 58% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 52.4469375379 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.93693693694 1.8405768891 105% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.543093949566 0.441005458295 123% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.178635796907 0.135418324435 132% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0919515910281 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.592349674495 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.174653990696 0.147661913831 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.248738971973 0.193483328276 129% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.141069470496 0.0970749176394 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.632812752361 0.42659136922 148% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0284449320149 0.0774707102158 37% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.461439133127 0.312017818177 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102485831406 0.0698173142475 147% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 15.0 14.657635468 102% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Minimum 3 arguments wanted.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.