The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.
"It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. It is
true that the symphony struggled financially for many years, but last year private
contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's
concerts-in-thepark series doubled. In addition, the symphony has just announced an
increase in ticket prices for next year . For these reasons, we recommend that the city
eliminate funding for the Grandview Symphony Orchestra from next year's budget. We
predict that the symphony will flourish in the years to come even without funding from the
city ."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order
to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to
explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the passage states that the city recommends elimination of funding for the Grandview symphony orchestra from next year's budget as they predict the symphony will flourish in the years to come without city funding. Based on the private contributions from the previous year which led to an increase. However, before this proposition can be assessed, three questions must be answered.
First of all, is last year's symphony going to be the same as the coming year’s symphony? In other words, are circumstances the same in the coming years? It is possible that last year and next year’s concert are not similar at all. For instance, the individuals who funded the Grandview symphony orchestra in the preceding year which it prospered may not make available the same funds in the coming years. Perhaps, the sponsors may not be interested in the upcoming events due to their busy schedules. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the quality of last year's orchestra, was not as good as the first one publicly funded, therefore, most of the sponsors will not be providing resources for the forth coming concerts. Or maybe some of the sponsors suggested the show ne done in a certain way which they desire but the organizers refused because there are processes and procedures that must be taken, consequently, that has brought about a rift and they have decided not to fund the show. If the above stated scenarios are true and valid, then the original argument does not hold water.
Secondly, what is the likelihood that there will be as much people in attendance as was the year before? Do a majority of those who attended the concert the previous year intend attending this year? Maybe, the audience that attended the show last year and caused a doubling had a lot of money to play around with because the economy was thriving that year, whereas, next year's economy may not flourish as expected due to a lot of factors. For instance, the united stated in 2019 had lots of jobs, as oil price sky rocketed, which boosted the economy and in 2020, the economy collapsed due to the coronavirus. There is a possibilty that this issue, which has led to the collapse and loss of jobs may still linger, thereby leading to people not wanting to spend money frivolously. If the above reasons are true, then the argument is significantly weakened.
Finally, what is the guarantee that tickets will be bought next year as much as it was bought last year? Is there a possibility that people are willing to spend more money buying tickets for the show? Perhaps, the turnout at the event the past year was so good, which made the organizers decide to increase inflate the price of the tickets. Nevertheless, one cannot use circumstances which led to a lot of ticket sales last year to make an assertion that next year's sales will be great as well, hence the increment in the amount being charged per ticket. Even if, the tickets are being bought at the new price, what is the assurance that in the coming years, the given amounts will always be affordable? If either of the above situations has merit, then the argument is weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now, is flawed due to its dependence on unwarranted information. The above questions must be answered with more evidence, which needs to be made available by the author for the recommendations to be properly evaluated.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-07-16 | scatri5113 | 78 | view |
| 2022-07-02 | iGeni | 58 | view |
| 2021-02-09 | lydia05025137 | 78 | view |
| 2020-07-03 | AdmiralMadingo | 80 | view |
| 2020-05-12 | jenniferjack07 | 68 | view |
- The council of Maple County, concerned about the county's becoming overdeveloped, is debating a proposed measure that would prevent the development of existing farmland in the county. But the council is also concerned that such a restriction, by limi 82
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of movie-rental stores."In order to stop the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten movie-rental stores. Since we ar 61
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and suppo 66
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 79
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 79
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 585 350
No. of Characters: 2741 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.918 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.685 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.529 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 181 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 136 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 96 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.438 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.76 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.292 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.473 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.063 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 23, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...t be answered. First of all, is last years symphony going to be the same as the co...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 564, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
... a possibility that the quality of last years orchestra, was not as good as the first...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 735, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...for the forth coming concerts. Or maybe some of the sponsors suggested the show ne done in ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 56, Rule ID: MUCH_COUNTABLE[1]
Message: Use 'many' with countable nouns.
Suggestion: many
...is the likelihood that there will be as much people in attendance as was the year be...
^^^^
Line 5, column 372, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'years'' or 'year's'?
Suggestion: years'; year's
...y was thriving that year, whereas, next years economy may not flourish as expected du...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, then, therefore, well, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 38.0 19.6327345309 194% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2819.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 4.8188034188 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.63043210493 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452991452991 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 864.0 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.0410569011 57.8364921388 102% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.76 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.2 5.70786347227 144% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => 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: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.26641888485 0.218282227539 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811504438107 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0997796346974 0.0701772020484 142% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169582835652 0.128457276422 132% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116053784347 0.0628817314937 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.97 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.04 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 121.0 98.500998004 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => 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
---------------------
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.