Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's rec

Essay topics:

Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent success with call-in advice programming, and citing a nationwide survey indicating that many radio listeners are quite interested in such programs, the station manager of KICK in Medway recommends that KICK include more call-in advice programs in an attempt to gain a larger audience share in its listening area.

The author claims here that radio station KICK should add more cell-in device programs in order to obtain more audiences. In support of this argument, the author reasons that since two years ago, WCQP by increasing the number of cell-in advice programs, could yield good results in widening the number of its audiences, and also, because of enhancing the people’s interests toward such programs, the KICK can repeat this success by adding cell-in device programs. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors, based on which it could be evaluated.

First of all, the argument readily assumes that WCQP and KICK radio stations are roughly similar. This assumption is merely made without much solid ground. For example, it is possible that the quality of each radio stations’ programs is entirely incomparable. Also, there a possibility that the popularity of KICK radio station is not the same as WCQP, and consequently, based on their popularity, their ranges of audiences are variant. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly stated how much every radio station has audiences and how much their programs are alike?

The author also points out that the condition of two years ago can be attributed to the current circumstance. This case, again, is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not present any information about these two different periods. To illustrate further, there may be the possibility that call-in advice programs had more audiences two years ago than the speaking time. Also, it is likely that these kinds of programs were introduced first two years ago, and so, it is crystal clear that people would welcome more at that time. Therefore, people may not like to listen such programs now. Even, there may be more similar programs on different radio stations and people prefer to listen to those radio channels. If the argument had provided evidence of the specific interests of listeners and how many radio stations perform such cell-in programs, then it would have been a lot more convincing for the reader.

Finally, the author cites that based on a survey, many listeners to radio programs are interested in such a cell-in program. However, careful investigating of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author’s conclusion in several critical aspects. For example, the survey may be ten pages and just two questions about such a program. Also, it is possible that the participants in this survey were chosen on biased in order to show that cell-in radio programs have many audiences. Another possibility is that maybe people answered to the survey’s questions based on their previous knowledge of WCQP’s programs, and since, they were interested in this radio station, they announced their good feelings about such cell-in programs. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the argument is significantly weakened.

In conclusion, because the argument makes several unwarranted assumptions, it fails to make a convincing case that by increasing the cell-in radio programs, the KICK will be reached to the success of the WCQP.

Average: 5.5 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2682.0 2260.96107784 119% => OK
No of words: 516.0 441.139720559 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.1976744186 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76609204519 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70812097876 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.437984496124 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 819.0 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.9834043566 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.909090909 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4545454545 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.77272727273 5.70786347227 101% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262024399995 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0841329700603 0.0743258471296 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562868980024 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155172137521 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0390521280073 0.0628817314937 62% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.3799401198 103% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.

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: 22 15
No. of Words: 516 350
No. of Characters: 2586 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.766 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.012 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.523 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 189 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 51 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.455 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.861 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.773 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.328 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.513 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5