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 complaints received from viewers were concerned
with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise
during our late-night news program have canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order
to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we
should expand our coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
The argument states here that television station should devout their late night shows for weather and local news. The argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this, author reasons that complains for late night shows are mostly for local and weather reports. However, careful scrutiny of evidence reveals that it provides little support for the author's conclusion. Hence, the argument can be considered incomplete or unsubstantiated.
First of all, argument readily assumes that complains received from viewers were for local news and weather reports. This is a weak and unsupported assumption made without much solid ground. For instance, there can be possibilities that they do not know the reasons about why it shifted the programs. In this circumstance, obviously there will be doubt in local public's mind about their local television channel. If argument explicitly stated that local news programs and weather reports have better viewing than the national news than it will be much more convincing.
Moreover, argument reasons that local businesses have canceled their sponsorship, because of changing in the late night programs. This again is a weak analogy used by the argument and it do not clearly demonstrate the correct correlation between backing of local businesses and changing in late night shows. For example, there can be possibilities that local businesses do not find late night advertising helpful. If this is the case then it seriously weakens the argument. Argument would have been much more convincing to reader if they have provided more information regarding back out of local businesses.
Finally, argument states that to attract more viewers to late night programs and to avoid losing advertising revenues, they should shift to weather and local news reports. However, careful examination of this statement reveals that it fails to support author's conclusion in several critical factors and raises skeptical questions. For example, how it will be helpful to gain the revenues?, what are the factors will taken into account that will reduce any complains?. Without convincing answer to these questions reader is left with the impression that author's reasoning is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantiate evidence.
In conclusion, argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, argument must provide more clear and concrete information, either by means of substantiate survey or more detailed analysis of complains of viewer and local businesses. Finally, to better evaluate the argument it must provide further information about why television station has shifted their weather and local programs to national news?
- To serve the housing needs of our students, Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories. Buckingham's enrollment is growing and, based on current trends, will double over the next 50 years, thus making existing dormitory space inadequate. 66
- people's behavior is largely dependent by forces not their own making. 50
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 40
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 50
- The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company. "When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited 50
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 407, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...that it provides little support for the authors conclusion. Hence, the argument can be ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 188, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'does'?
Suggestion: does
...eak analogy used by the argument and it do not clearly demonstrate the correct cor...
^^
Line 5, column 415, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ot find late night advertising helpful. If this is the case then it seriously weak...
^^
Line 7, column 417, Rule ID: PRP_PAST_PART[3]
Message: Did you mean 'take' or 'be taken'?
Suggestion: take; be taken
...he revenues?, what are the factors will taken into account that will reduce any compl...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 504, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'questions'' or 'question's'?
Suggestion: questions'; question's
...ns?. Without convincing answer to these questions reader is left with the impression that...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.236051502146 0.25644967241 92% => OK
Verbs: 0.165236051502 0.15541462614 106% => OK
Adjectives: 0.12017167382 0.0836205057962 144% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0536480686695 0.0520304965353 103% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0386266094421 0.0272364105082 142% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.115879828326 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0429184549356 0.0416121511921 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76493867164 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0278969957082 0.026700313972 104% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0643776824034 0.113004496875 57% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0300429184549 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0171673819742 0.0127820249294 134% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2735.0 2731.13054187 100% => OK
No of words: 424.0 446.07635468 95% => OK
Chars per words: 6.45047169811 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53775939005 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.419811320755 0.378187486979 111% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.365566037736 0.287650121315 127% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.235849056604 0.208842608468 113% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.134433962264 0.135150697306 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76493867164 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.471698113208 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 51.6729247359 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 19.2727272727 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.7622547937 57.7814097925 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.318181818 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.2727272727 23.2022227129 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.590909090909 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 55.8293310463 51.9672348444 107% => OK
Elegance: 1.53333333333 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.375127543587 0.441005458295 85% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0961193030049 0.135418324435 71% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0777567757599 0.0829849096947 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.496784343208 0.58762219726 85% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.118034396103 0.147661913831 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145570974046 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0755787058173 0.0970749176394 78% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.356044569122 0.42659136922 83% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0412646120932 0.0774707102158 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.269078337385 0.312017818177 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0257179633413 0.0698173142475 37% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.