The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station.
"To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here after their retirement. We must make listeners of these new residents. We could switch to a music format tailored to their tastes, but a continuing decline in local sales of recorded music suggests limited interest in music. Instead we should change to a news and talk format, a form of radio that is increasingly popular in our area."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The proposed memo argues that WWAC radio station should switch from its current rock-music format to a news and talk format to gain popularity by an increasing number of residents who have settled in the area after retirement. The manager should be given credit for his or her strategy to attract more listeners, but the claim is presented in a manner that does not fully support itself as it rests upon a few unwarranted assumptions. If the manager offered more information and clarity to adjust his or her claim as below, the argument could be further supported.
The primary flaw of the claim is that the manager attributes the decline in listener numbers to its current rock-music format. While the implication that rock music is not the most accepted genre by the residents may be indeed true, the correlation between the genre and the decline cannot be effectively made without further information. For example, the decline may be explained by the station's repetition of the same songs, which is likely to bore listeners. Alternatively, the residents might not simply be fond of the voice of the DJ. Without such information to prove that the residents do not use the radio station because of its focus on rock music, the argument remains rather unconvincing. The author should consider citing survey results or other data to clearly explain the correlation here.
Another point in this argument that needs to be viewed with caution is the statement that the decline in the local sales of recorded music means limited interest in music. The author determines without any justification that the local sales are the only indicator of people's interest in music. Critical readers may argue that online music is becoming increasingly popular instead of the traditional form of recorded music. As the local sales are clearly not the only factor that accounts for the decline, the manager should perhaps consider offering relevant information to prove the causal relationship between local sales and people's interest in music.
Lastly, building upon the assumptions above, the manager proceeds to conclude that a news and talk format will ensure popularity, claiming that it is increasingly popular in the area. Again, the information given here is not sufficient to draw this conclusion. There is no evidence to prove this is the case to begin with, and furthermore, just because the format is popular does not guarantee that the station will gain the predicted popularity. Perhaps, such a format has been already offered by the station's competitors and the vast majority are loyal to them. Moreover, without statistical data, we cannot determine how popular the format has been. Had the manager provided information, such as numerical data or surveys, demonstrating that the decision to introduce a news and talk format will likely result in an increase of listeners, the argument could have been further substantiated.
In sum, while the argument is not entirely invalid, and the manager should be lauded for his or her business proposal, the proposal lacks several key points that could substantially support the claim. If the manager provided the aforementioned information and elaborated on the details, his or her proposal could contribute a great deal to gaining a larger listener base.
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'furthermore', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'while', 'for example', 'such as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247078464107 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.155258764608 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0834724540902 0.0836205057962 100% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0601001669449 0.0520304965353 116% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0267111853088 0.0272364105082 98% => OK
Prepositions: 0.110183639399 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0417362270451 0.0416121511921 100% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86450292944 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0283806343907 0.026700313972 106% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.126878130217 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0300500834725 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0116861435726 0.0127820249294 91% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3325.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 536.0 446.07635468 120% => OK
Chars per words: 6.20335820896 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81161862636 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.397388059701 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.305970149254 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.199626865672 0.208842608468 96% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.121268656716 0.135150697306 90% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86450292944 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 207.018472906 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46828358209 0.469332199767 100% => OK
Word variations: 55.1336889503 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 25.5238095238 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3952180721 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.333333333 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5238095238 23.2022227129 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.52380952381 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 56.1208244492 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.64827586207 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.45783976301 0.441005458295 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.156248114556 0.135418324435 115% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0762250018389 0.0829849096947 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.658730849828 0.58762219726 112% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.126162226082 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.217076841998 0.193483328276 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0910633320532 0.0970749176394 94% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.506195784215 0.42659136922 119% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0661744972985 0.0774707102158 85% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.321229636267 0.312017818177 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0602011900971 0.0698173142475 86% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => 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.