While it may be true that the KICK ought to expand its call-in advice programs to attract a larger group of audience, the decision made by the station manager is compromised by a number of questions. Answering these questions could be vital for the feasibility and success of this reform.
To begin with, citing the surge of audience of WCQP in Rockville after it broadcasted more call-in advice programs, the author concludes that this program is more popular. It is not clear, however, the exact element that contributes to this increase. For example, it is not impossible that more people choose to listen WCQP simply because they like the style of a particular host, but has little to do with the exact content of the program. Thus, to truly understand the relationship between audience share and call-in advice programs, the author ought to discreetly study the possible concomitant factors.
Additionally, the author implies that a nationwide survey suggests the growing popularity of call-in advice programs. This alone is far from adequate to support the assertion of the station manager of KICK. A problem worth noting here is the validity of the qurstionnaire. Before taking the results seriously, the author need to know how representative the survey is, for instance. Is it possible that the survey was carried out by a national radio station that shares a huge population of audience who like the call-in advice programs of that station? Before answering these questions and many others alike, the survey cannot be used as the evidence to include more call-in advice programs at KICK.
Last but not least, even if there is a possitive correlation between the number of audience and the proportion of call-in advice programs broadcasted, the preference of local community should also be considered. Since WCQP is located in Rockville, and the survey adduced by the manager is a nationwide one, these evidence do not reliably reflects the taste of people in Medway, where KICK is based. In other words, it would be fruitless for KICK to include more call-in advice programs if people in its listening area are indifferent to this program format at all.
In conclusion, a program format that caters the interests of more residents in the listening area can definitely increase the audience share of KICK. For this reason, the station manager of KICK may decide to offer more call-in advice programs. However, the author's arguments are rife with questions yet to be answered, which undoubtly undermine the implementation of broadcasting more call-in advice programs.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2167.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 421.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.14726840855 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52971130743 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76256527818 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475059382423 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 685.8 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.3306877518 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.388888889 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.3888888889 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.5 5.70786347227 114% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.265262242205 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0819904881603 0.0743258471296 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0648592470026 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150991662114 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336499646415 0.0628817314937 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => 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: 12.89 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 98.500998004 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.