The following appeared in a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony.
"The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony's inception-pocetak ten years ago. Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, who has been able to attract high-profile guest musicians to perform with the symphony. Since then, private contributions to the symphony have doubled and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series has reached new highs. Now that the Grandview Symphony is an established success, it can raise ticket prices. Increased revenue from larger audiences and higher ticket prices will enable the symphony to succeed without funding from the city government."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
In a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony appeared that this orchestra could become an institution able to provide funding for itself independently from any kind of external funding such as the previous funding from the city of Grandview and private contributions. To support his recommendation, the author of this argument points out that the audience of the symphonic orchestra has increased which has, consequently, caused the increase in the revenue. Therefore, the author assumes that this fact can ensure higher ticket prices and a larger audience. While it is tempting to believe that this argument based on the information provided by the author is plausible, it would be fallacious to do so. This argument is not based on facts, but rather on assumptions. The lack of the author’s in-depth analysis and missing evidence have left holes in the reasoning of this argument.
First and foremost, the author of this argument argues that the symphony last year employed an internationally known conductor who has attracted great musicians to play with the symphony. In stating this, however, the author makes a broad assumption without providing any relevant data which would support his recommendation. Indeed, there is not presented any information about the number of audience who has attended that concert. It might that the symphony had great guest soloists, but the concert was not attended in a great number of people. The author of the argument does not mention the audience at all which does not help him in corroborating his recommendation. If this scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Further, in the argument, it is illustrated that after this concert, the private contributions to the symphony have doubled and the concerts organized in the park have become much more popular among the people. However, the author does not state that there were tickets, but that the concert was funded by private contributions. Therefore, there is not any warranty that the audience would pay for the ticket if it was introduced. The author should provide information about the tickets if all the concert was paid by the private funding, or also the audience contributed to this. If the above is true, then the argument does not hold water.
Finally, the author of the argument assumes that increased popularity is the warranty for the tickets price to be increased and even, that more expensive tickets and a larger number of the audience can increase the revenue. However, the author fails (falls) to provide any information about the number of the audience and the tickets at all. It might be that the concerts were that popular because they were free. Further, even if there were tickets, maybe there was a great number of the audience because the tickets were not expensive. Unless the author offers sufficient evidence, the assumption is logically flawed.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed, due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide more evidence about the tickets for the concerts and the actual number of the audience, then it will be possible to fully evaluate the validity of this recommendation.
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 50
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this period, most of the complaint 82
- 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 your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yo 58
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college 50
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 533 350
No. of Characters: 2666 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.805 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.002 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.734 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 157 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.208 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.461 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.339 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.51 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, however, if, may, so, then, therefore, while, in conclusion, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 37.0 16.3942115768 226% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2738.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 533.0 441.139720559 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13696060038 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80487177365 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86533881632 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412757973734 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 855.0 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.3569313834 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.083333333 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2083333333 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.91666666667 5.70786347227 86% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.113882264215 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0318772218991 0.0743258471296 43% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0680709261818 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0653633648961 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0480185263616 0.0628817314937 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => 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: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.13 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 98.500998004 117% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.