“A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.”
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The manager of the television station asserts that increasing the late-night news program's time spent on weather and local news will spike viewership, thereby restoring lost advertising revenues. The author's assumption is fundamentally lacking in sound logic and sufficient evidence to back his conclusion.
The author states that complaints from viewers pertained to weather and local news coverage, during the time that devotion to these topics decreased. While this suggests that these viewers complaints were related to the lack of coverage of these topics, this is not definitive. The author then jumps to the conclusion that viewership will increase as a result of restoring time to weather and local news topics. In order to support this statement, the news station would need to report statistics on viewership over many months, including the months where programming changed. If viewership significantly decreased during the time period of change, there may be strong evidence to support that restoring time on these topics will induce specific demographics to tune in more often. However, the assumption that reverting to the original lineup will increase viewership is wholly unsupported.
Additionally, while it seems reasonable that advertising agencies would cancel subscriptions when viewership decreases, the author is mistaken to assume that changing programming will prevent further loss in advertising revenue. First of all, the author does not establish direct causation between change in programming and advertising contract cancellations. While viewers complained about coverage, it is not clear that these complaints directly caused the agencies to abort their contracts, and these contracts resulted in loss of advertising revenue. Perhaps these agencies decided to devote their resources to other stations for unrelated reasons. For example, if they received better offers from other businesses, any increases in viewership might not necessarily keep these remaining agencies interested. In order to determine the effect of programming on advertising agencies, the manager would need to gather evidence on expenditures and advertising contracts from all competing stations and other changes in the news and advertising industries at the time. If the agencies cancelled their contracts because of decreases in lack of viewership, and reverting back to original programming increased viewership, the remaining agencies may be disincentivized to cancel any further commitments. Further, there could be factors influencing advertising revenues, other than the number of contracts, that the manager is not taking into account. The station may have commitments with fewer agencies, but may still receive increased revenues, depending on the business plan.
The business manager's reasoning that restoring the time devoted to weather and national news will increase viewership and thereby prevent advertising agencies from cancelling additional contracts with the news station is fundamentally flawed. The author cannot readily assume that augmenting time spent on weather and local news will increase viewership. This unsupported statement leads to the unsupported conclusion that the former programming will prevent further loss of advertising revenues. The causes of the changes in trends in advertising revenues requires detailed evidence and further evaluation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...estoring lost advertising revenues. The authors assumption is fundamentally lacking in ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 1, 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.
...ent evidence to back his conclusion. The author states that complaints from view...
^^^
Line 7, column 244, 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.
...e news station is fundamentally flawed. The author cannot readily assume that augme...
^^^
Line 7, column 568, Rule ID: NEEDS_FIXED[1]
Message: "requires detailed" is only accepted in certain dialects. For something more widely acceptable, try 'detailing' or 'to be detailed'.
Suggestion: detailing; to be detailed
...trends in advertising revenues requires detailed evidence and further evaluation.
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, while, for example, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2900.0 2260.96107784 128% => OK
No of words: 493.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.88235294118 5.12650576532 115% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71206996034 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99697645199 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.450304259635 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 876.6 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.8181077477 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.095238095 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4761904762 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.38095238095 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0275671105007 0.218282227539 13% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0106903735736 0.0743258471296 14% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0166434169961 0.0701772020484 24% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.018072281896 0.128457276422 14% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0187227828905 0.0628817314937 30% => 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: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.3550499002 65% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.197005988 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.12 12.5979740519 136% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.01 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 98.500998004 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.