The following appeared in an e-mail sent by the marketing director of the Classical Shakespeare Theatre of Bardville.
"Over the past ten years, there has been a 20 percent decline in the size of the average audience at Classical Shakespeare Theatre productions. In spite of increased advertising, we are attracting fewer and fewer people to our shows, causing our profits to decrease significantly. We must take action to attract new audience members. The best way to do so is by instituting a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program this summer. Two years ago the nearby Avon Repertory Company started a 'Free Plays in the Park' program, and its profits have increased 10 percent since then. Therefore, I recommend that we start a 'Shakespeare in the Park' program of our own. If we do so, I predict that our profits will also see a significant increase."
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 argument that launching a 'Shakespeare in the Park" program would positively impact the profits seems convincing at first glance, but the Classical Shakespeare Theater Production does not provide compelling evidence to make their argument cogent. The lack of evidence hinders the possibility of a proper evaluation of the argument's reasoning. Below are a two major discrepancies that enfeeble the argument.
The Classical Shakespeare Theater Productions seem to rely solely on the success of a similar initiative proposed by Avon Repertory Company. However, it is unclear whether the comparison would be relevant. There is no description of the special shows and attractions that the Avon Repertory Company offers, and it remains unknown whether the theater goers in both places have something in common or are rather diverse in their interests and their social and cultural backgrounds. Meanwhile, if the the audiences of the Classical Shakespeare Theater Production and the Avon Repertory Company were surveyed, the data could have been useful in uncovering interesting trends that might strengthen the argument.
In addition, The Classical Shakespeare Theater Production also claims that the nearby Avon Repertory Company has achieved a 10% increase in profits following their initiative. Nonetheless, this information could be misleading. It could be a sudden response from the audience of Avon Repertory to this offer but not a regular trend; there is no evidence that this temporal increase in the audience will be sustainable in the long run. Furthermore, a 10% increase in the audience of Avon Repertory is not a reliable measure to evaluate the eventual success of the proposed initiative by Classical Shakespeare Theatre Production. To put it differently, Avon Repertory audience could have been very small in size before their promotional offer was launched. In this case, a 10% increase does not necessarily prove a substantial increase in the audience or profits.
In brief, the argument the Classical Shakespeare Theater Production is presenting relies on an analogy. It could be right, but the lack of evidence and the ignorance of the multifaceted elements that contribute to audience to leave a theater company or come in higher numbers has been neglected.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 495, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: the
...and cultural backgrounds. Meanwhile, if the the audiences of the Classical Shakespeare ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 495, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: the; the
...and cultural backgrounds. Meanwhile, if the the audiences of the Classical Shakespeare ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 696, Rule ID: ADJECTIVE_IN_ATTRIBUTE[1]
Message: A more concise phrase may lose no meaning and sound more powerful.
Suggestion: small
...Repertory audience could have been very small in size before their promotional offer was laun...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'nonetheless', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'in addition', 'in brief']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.304909560724 0.25644967241 119% => OK
Verbs: 0.142118863049 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0723514211886 0.0836205057962 87% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0387596899225 0.0520304965353 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0258397932817 0.0272364105082 95% => OK
Prepositions: 0.103359173127 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0439276485788 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.05546897644 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0180878552972 0.026700313972 68% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.139534883721 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0232558139535 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0077519379845 0.0127820249294 61% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2290.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 353.0 446.07635468 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.48725212465 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.33454660006 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.439093484419 0.378187486979 116% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.388101983003 0.287650121315 135% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.294617563739 0.208842608468 141% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.201133144476 0.135150697306 149% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.05546897644 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 167.0 207.018472906 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.473087818697 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 48.8553490658 52.1807786196 94% => OK
How many sentences: 15.0 20.039408867 75% => OK
Sentence length: 23.5333333333 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1495641506 57.7814097925 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 152.666666667 141.986410481 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5333333333 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.8 0.724660767414 110% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.14285714286 78% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 62.3435316336 51.9672348444 120% => OK
Elegance: 2.1875 1.8405768891 119% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.559377839188 0.441005458295 127% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.123877862408 0.135418324435 91% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0938937243315 0.0829849096947 113% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.595762405226 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.176579718964 0.147661913831 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.264181869216 0.193483328276 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137298176867 0.0970749176394 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.484327023658 0.42659136922 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0155184673896 0.0774707102158 20% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.439124587328 0.312017818177 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0209702663694 0.0698173142475 30% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: This is not the final score. 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.