In the preceding argument, the author states that Grandview Symphony are able to fully self-supporting, and the city can eliminate the fund from the next year's budget, the conclusion of the argument is based on the following premises. Firstly, the author states that there is a private fund helps the Symphony by 200 percent that led to double the attendance. Secondly, the Symphony will increase the ticket prices for the next year. Hence, in the first glance it may seem plausible. However, careful scrutiny sheds light on plethora of questions that could undermine the value of the argument.
To begin with, even there is a concrete and positive relation between the private fund offer by 200 percent and the significant rising in the attendance number. This does necessarily indicates a conspicuous relation between the two events. In other words, how he concluded the causation? And how the strong relation is? Plus what kind of contributions that flourish this type of success. Thus, building a decision depends on vague causation is not plausible and he has to assess the situation carefully to identify the real relation.
Furthermore, the largest leap in the argument also lies in increasing the ticket price for the next years. In deed, how he assumed that increase the ticket price will guarantee the same attendance in the next year. Perhaps people will never go when the price increase. Further, depends on what data they will increase the price and how much the rise will help to fund the Symphony. Are there shows all they time?. Consequently the argument is without basis and in order to boost the argument he has to answer all the previous questions clearly.
Moreover, the fallacy of the argument is stating that it is fine to eliminate the city fund by the next year because they are able to fund themselves, but depends on what they assume that, the city fund might be the backbone of supporting the Symphony and perhaps they are the only permanent supporter for the Symphony. Thus the argument lack a depth of details and without these data the argument is weak.
All in all, the argument fails to mention one key factor. Namely, all the previous assumptions are equivocal, Hence, without complete information and answering all the question the argument is unsubstantiated and opened to debate.
- The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a scientific journal."A recent study of eighteen rhesus monkeys provides clues as to the effects of birth order on an individual's levels of stimulation. The study showed that in stimulating situ 29
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the president of Amburg's Chamber of Commerce."Last October the city of Belleville installed high-intensity lighting in its central business district, and vandalism there declined wit 72
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position 75
- The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:“Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great 66
- The following appeared in a memo from a vice president of Alta Manufacturing."During the past year, Alta Manufacturing had thirty percent more on-the-job accidents than nearby Panoply Industries, where the work shifts are one hour 69
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
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: 21 15
No. of Words: 388 350
No. of Characters: 1883 1500
No. of Different Words: 185 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.438 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.853 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.572 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.476 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.648 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.298 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.515 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 184, Rule ID: DOES_X_HAS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'indicate'? As 'do' is already inflected, the verb cannot also be inflected.
Suggestion: indicate
...ttendance number. This does necessarily indicates a conspicuous relation between the two ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Consequently,
...mphony. Are there shows all they time?. Consequently the argument is without basis and in or...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 321, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...y permanent supporter for the Symphony. Thus the argument lack a depth of details an...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, first, firstly, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, thus, as to, kind of, in other words, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1940.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 388.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66290874902 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 191.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.492268041237 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 593.1 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 68.4111552877 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.380952381 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4761904762 23.324526521 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.71428571429 5.70786347227 135% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => 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: 0.190155343104 0.218282227539 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0477522749165 0.0743258471296 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.064678825856 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100549610246 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0857584844919 0.0628817314937 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.4 14.3799401198 79% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 85.0 98.500998004 86% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.