"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."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that commissioners of symphony concert have decided not to allocate budget to this program owing to the fact that they want to raise ticket price and symphony could be self-supporting. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored question need to be addressed.
First, the author contends that contributions and attendances both increased dramatically at the concert during last year. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since a question that might arise is whether the population growth is increasing day in day out since last year. One point that should be considered is that maybe vast majorities of the population have lived in that region during last year and then immigrate to other cities. Indeed, what if the population decrease over time? It is also important to say that maybe private contributions decide to invest their money on the other realm like movies and cinema, sports, education and so forth. In this situation, the symphony concert will definitely need the annual budget.
The author also asserts that the symphony concert will increase the ticket price next year. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question if people are satisfied and pay more money for the concert. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that maybe people be on a tight budget because of inflation or economic recession and do not be able to pay too much money for the concert. There is a possibility that attenders prefer to participate in cheaper concerts. Alongside that, what if the population diminish after a year? In fact, reduction of population will put their future market in trouble, which could not be profitable for the symphony.
Finally, as set forth by the author the next year budget should be eliminated for the symphony. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if eliminate budget patronize development of symphony. One point that should not go unnoticed is that improvement of the symphony depends on different factors like people who works in the symphony, their fame and so forth. Perhaps eliminate budget run symphony into a huge problem or perhaps employees lose their incentive. As a matter of fact, this budget allocation could guarantee symphony's success.
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there is some question, having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, while, in fact, as a matter of fact
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 13.6137724551 154% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2233.0 2260.96107784 99% => OK
No of words: 442.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0520361991 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58517132086 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69948186704 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.502262443439 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 693.0 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.9107467061 57.8364921388 90% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.333333333 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0476190476 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95238095238 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.214589501301 0.218282227539 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695040390918 0.0743258471296 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0527672461976 0.0701772020484 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115414753452 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0680969136673 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.18 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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: 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.