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
The argument states that in order to forestall any further adverse publicity for the station and to avoid the loss of additional listener-supporters, public radio station should discontinue the current emphasis on Latino and world music. The argument is flawed and relies readily on vague and ambiguous assumption to draw conclusion. The author has failed to provide tangible facts and statistics to prove its claim.
To begin, the author states that the radio station has logged many complaints for un-American bias of the program. This statement is a stretch as it does not provide what exactly "many long term supporter" counts for, it puts lights on the uncertainty of the count. Furthermore, it fails to provide enough proofs or evidences that could explain the fact the complaints are soley because of the shift to Latino and world music. There could be many other reason which might have triggered this logging of complaints. It could have been strengthen if the author has provided some facts and statistics to support this claim.
In addition to it, the author claims that the current shift has called for critics from the local newspaper. Again, the absence of references published in the newspaper put this argument in the state of ambiguity. For example, the article published in the newspaper might have ridiculed the radio station for replacing some previous channel that were very much popular, which also states change and does not imply anything to allocating more time to Latin and world music.
To conclude, the author's argument to discontinue current emphasis on Latin and world music is unwarranted and draws conclusion based on vague and ambiguous statements.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
minimum 3 arguments wanted.
----------------------
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: 12 15
No. of Words: 273 350
No. of Characters: 1384 1500
No. of Different Words: 146 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.065 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.07 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 98 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 36 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.584 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.333 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.369 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.585 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 335, 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.
...mbiguous assumption to draw conclusion. The author has failed to provide tangible f...
^^^
Line 3, column 545, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'strengthened'.
Suggestion: strengthened
...gging of complaints. It could have been strengthen if the author has provided some facts a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...n and world music. To conclude, the authors argument to discontinue current emphasi...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 169, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ased on vague and ambiguous statements.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, if, so, then, for example, in addition
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 7.0 19.6327345309 36% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 31.0 55.5748502994 56% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1430.0 2260.96107784 63% => OK
No of words: 273.0 441.139720559 62% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2380952381 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.06481385082 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77050961808 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 147.0 204.123752495 72% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.538461538462 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 432.0 705.55239521 61% => 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: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7376667972 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.166666667 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.75 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.171528725732 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0573758012255 0.0743258471296 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0467049002812 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103010539444 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0266976515868 0.0628817314937 42% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => 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: 13.41 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.66 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
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: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.