“In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city’s arts museums has increased by similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public television, where most of visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect that attendance at our city’s museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television.”
The argument given states that funds supporting arts should be reallocated to public television because with the cut in corporate funding that supports public television where most of the visual arts programs are presented will impact indirectly on the number of people watching television program on visual arts and number of people visiting museums. The conclusion is unconvincing because it is based on several unsubstantiated assumptions of comparison of public television viewers and visitors to the city’s art museum. The council’s argument is seriously flawed as discussed below.
First the argument fails to show any correlation between people viewing television program on visual art and people visiting art museums. This is not evident that people who watch television programs on the visual arts also visit the art museums. It could be possible that increase in the attendance of the city’s museum was due to increase in tourist population frequenting the museum or because there was an increase in children between the age groups of 8 -12 years visiting the museum as a result of a number awareness programs initiated by the museum. So, it could be possible that though the number of programs on visual arts decreases, the number of people visiting museum will remain the same or increases.
Secondly the author assumes that the same group of people participated in the two polls. However there is no substantial information to state that the population of people who took part in the poll are the same. There could have been a surge of families who may have moved to the city within these five years who had nothing to do with the first poll.
Moreover author needs to state that whether decrease in corporate funding
For public television will cause a reduction of programs being aired on the television pertaining to visual arts. If corporate funding is normally geared towards programs on economic affairs & news, then it would be highly unlikely that the number of programs on visual arts would decrease. So an impact analysis needs to be done by the council before reaching any conclusion on the effect of the corporate funding cuts on the types of television programs being aired.
To conclude the main point about the relationship or the lack between TV viewer ship and museum visitors should appropriately taken up. Additionally the argument could be strengthened by showing clearer statistics regarding viewer ship and attendance, in terms of percentage of total population; Better understanding of the factors influencing the city’s interest in arts is needed. Without using such information the argument makes a hasty suggestion regarding city funds.
- “In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city’s arts 69
- “In a recent citywide poll, fifteen percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts than was the case in a poll conducted five years ago. During these past five years, the number of people visiting our city’s arts 50
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 16 15
No. of Words: 432 350
No. of Characters: 2215 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.559 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.127 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.758 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 12.15 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 530, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...visitors to the city's art museum. The council's argument is seriously fl...
^^^
Line 6, column 90, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...f people participated in the two polls. However there is no substantial information to ...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Moreover,
...d nothing to do with the first poll. Moreover author needs to state that whether decr...
^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 137, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...visitors should appropriately taken up. Additionally the argument could be strengthened by s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2282.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 432.0 441.139720559 98% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28240740741 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55901411391 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84918261613 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469907407407 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 699.3 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.5289977721 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.625 119.503703932 119% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.0 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6875 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306279491145 0.218282227539 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.104856980258 0.0743258471296 141% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706401246669 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.136513593084 0.128457276422 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0932974490082 0.0628817314937 148% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.5 12.3882235529 125% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.