For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony. Last year, however, private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series doubled. The symphony has also announced an increase in ticket prices for next year. Given such developments, some city commissioners argue that the symphony can now be fully self-supporting, and they recommend that funding for the symphony be eliminated from next year's budget.
The argument states that since private contributions to the symphony increased the funding for the symphony should be removed and provide some reasons for holding this claim. While this seem convincing on first glance, there are significant underlying flaws and unstated assumption that raise doubt about the author’s conclusion.
The author unfairly assumes that during this period that the number of attendances has been increased other possible reasons affecting that will remain unchanged. For instance, are there any famous artist play music during this period? Or the current symphony programs will be the same, changing schedule may reduce attendance.
The argument relies upon assumption private contributions reflect number of attendances. There are many people denote to symphony but they never attend, it is not realistic that private contributions directly depends on attendance.
The argument relies upon assumption that increasing ticket price can help symphony financial while no evidence is offered to substantiate the causality. For example, maybe the main reason that more individuals are interested in attending the symphony is its low price and this increase might be detrimental rather than beneficial.
The argument asserts that the funding should be eliminated while we are not informed what percent of symphony’s cost has been granted by government. The budget dedicated to symphony change year by year therefore when we want to estimate symphony financial need, this important point must be considered. Knowing that these contribution will cover all costs.
In sum, this argument has main logical fallacies and the author’s conclusion is not supported by good reasons, if the author were to provide concrete evidence regarding real reason of increase in attendance, what percent of people contributions supported symphony costs and differences between current and future price of the ticket, his argument was more convincing
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-01 | Sai sushma | 63 | view |
| 2019-09-12 | inessad | 77 | view |
| 2019-08-22 | ireth7 | 83 | view |
| 2019-06-26 | SOUMEDHIK | 77 | view |
| 2019-05-13 | zickzion123 | 50 | view |
- Topic 3: Nowadays, food has become easier to prepare. Has this change improved the way people food? Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer. 60
- Argument Topic :“In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore’s ten video rental stores. Since we are famous for our special bargains, raising our rental prices is not a viable way to improv 50
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones. 50
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. 50
- Topic 1 60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 203, Rule ID: ON_FIRST_GLANCE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'at'?
Suggestion: at
... this claim. While this seem convincing on first glance, there are significant und...
^^
Line 9, column 322, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this contribution' or 'these contributions'?
Suggestion: this contribution; these contributions
... point must be considered. Knowing that these contribution will cover all costs. In sum, this a...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, may, regarding, so, therefore, while, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1688.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 294.0 441.139720559 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.74149659864 5.12650576532 112% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14082457966 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88871445488 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.568027210884 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 518.4 705.55239521 73% => 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: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 19.7664670659 66% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.0765290027 57.8364921388 130% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.846153846 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6153846154 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07692307692 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262641069787 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0971128746979 0.0743258471296 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0695517769473 0.0701772020484 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.143158441663 0.128457276422 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473528363482 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.31 12.5979740519 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
More content wanted.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.