Two years ago, radio station WCQP in Rockville decided to increase the number of call-in advice programs that it broadcast; since that time, its share of the radio audience in the Rockville listening area has increased significantly. Given WCQP's recent success with call-in advice programming, and citing a nationwide survey indicating that many radio listeners are quite interested in such programs, the station manager of KICK in Medway recommends that KICK include more call-in advice programs in an attempt to gain a larger audience share in its listening area.
We can extract from the above argument: KICK should start increasing call-in program themselves to get the same result as WCQP did in order to increase their audience share. This position was held on the basis of The success of call-in advice programming of WCQP radio station. This conclusion was drawn solely based on inexhaustive research. To make this conclusion to strengthen following few question should be asked.
Does WCQP's success really indicate they can achieve this feat too? Well The research bases of the two radio station might not be the same; that the WCQP's audience may have loved the show because they were familiar and connected with the show host. This is a major issue in most of the shows, apparently shows success does not come with its format but rather with the content. Even the change of the host of the very show at WCQP would not guarantee its success as a whole. Any shows success is content-with-presentation. If the manager could work on finding answer to his problem it could be better.
There is another question- Is this the only show that they could work on to increase their share of audience? - that needs to be answered. The call-in program is not the only program that KICK radio station airs; there may be shows that interest more audience than this very show and that the increase in those shows time could interest more audience. Based on WCQP's successful encounter with the call-in program the KICK can't just imply they could be better in the same program, this might be a disaster. The other shows like how-to-live better might get more audiences' attention than the call-in program in the KICK radio station. So, the manager should research on the popularity of the other shows too to get a better comparision and result later.
Another exclusive question that needs to be answered right away is, Does the both station share the audience that have same taste-of-radio-programs? Well this can't be answered without any exhaustive research. The KICk manager should try to answer this question first then only can he be able to imply his positions. The audiences that loved call-in program in WCQP's might not be the same audiences that listen KICK radio station as a whole.
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 answer the above mentioned questions and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of systematic research study), then it will be possible to dully evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation to increase their audience share by increasing the time of the show they air.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 450 350
No. of Characters: 2164 1500
No. of Different Words: 188 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.606 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.809 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.588 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.243 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.476 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.524 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 213, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... This position was held on the basis of The success of call-in advice programmin...
^^
Line 5, column 478, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'shows'' or 'show's'?
Suggestion: shows'; show's
...t guarantee its success as a whole. Any shows success is content-with-presentation. I...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 522, 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.
...s success is content-with-presentation. If the manager could work on finding answe...
^^
Line 9, column 423, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...unter with the call-in program the KICK cant just imply they could be better in the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 562, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'audiences'' or 'audience's'?
Suggestion: audiences'; audience's
... like how-to-live better might get more audiences attention than the call-in program in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 160, Rule ID: CANT[1]
Message: Did you mean 'can't' or 'cannot'?
Suggestion: can't; cannot
...same taste-of-radio-programs? Well this cant be answered without any exhaustive rese...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
apparently, but, first, if, may, really, so, then, well, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 62.0 55.5748502994 112% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2215.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 449.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 4.93318485523 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60321845022 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76617041511 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 204.123752495 95% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.429844097996 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 656.1 705.55239521 93% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.5199806718 57.8364921388 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.681818182 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.4090909091 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.18181818182 5.70786347227 56% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.209995299443 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0710574092254 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0781634312895 0.0701772020484 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137304191378 0.128457276422 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0490180715199 0.0628817314937 78% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.0 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.31 12.5979740519 90% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.41 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.