Although, weather and local news might be one of the favorite segments of the viewers and low airtime of these resulting in falling viewership and ultimately low advertising revenue, the stated argument contains sizable amount of flaws in its assumption and reasoning.
Firstly, the author of the memorandum assumes that lower airtime of weather and local news is resulting in lower viewership of the late night news program based of 'most complaints' without giving any sound quatification. What portion of the viewers are complaining is not mentioned. Also, there might be multiple complaints from a few viewers askewing the statistics. In addition, the memorandum doesn't tell what is the number of interesting and newsworthy weather and local phenomenon happend past year. If the number of actual news is low then the coverage time is bound to be low. To stregthen the argument by author, these information should be clarified in a consistent manner.
Though an assumption with multiple hole, even if we consider that low airtime of local and weather news caused lower viewership, another flawed assumption comes into play. That is the lower viewership resulted in low advertising revenue. There can be multiple reasoning behind the low revenue. The local business might be undergoing economic recession and had to cut their spending for surviving. Another competitor TV channel might have introduced and business decided to advertise their product in that channel. This assumption without proper reasoning weakened the argument of the author and needs to be addressed with concrete evidence to strengthen the argument.
Apart from the above two points, another assumption is former level of advertising revenue amassed by the TV channel is enough for todays business situation. This might be not true and the TV channel's cashflow might be still not adequate if they able to achieve former level. The author should consider a proper analysis for projecting its required revenue and include in the memorandum.
The argument while interesting and plausible, contains some weak assumptions which can turn it invalid. To strengthen this argument and its assumption mentioned questions should be answered with proper evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 78, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...t be one of the favorite segments of the viewers and low airtime of these resulti...
^^
Line 3, column 396, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...statistics. In addition, the memorandum doesnt tell what is the number of interesting ...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 505, 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.
...and local phenomenon happend past year. If the number of actual news is low then t...
^^
Line 3, column 621, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'this information' or 'these informations'?
Suggestion: this information; these informations
...w. To stregthen the argument by author, these information should be clarified in a consistent man...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 659, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a consistent manner" with adverb for "consistent"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
..., these information should be clarified in a consistent manner. Though an assumption with multiple ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 96, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'invalids'?
Suggestion: invalids
...some weak assumptions which can turn it invalid. To strengthen this argument and its as...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'while', 'apart from', 'in addition']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.246684350133 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.172413793103 0.15541462614 111% => OK
Adjectives: 0.122015915119 0.0836205057962 146% => OK
Adverbs: 0.026525198939 0.0520304965353 51% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0212201591512 0.0272364105082 78% => OK
Prepositions: 0.116710875332 0.125424944231 93% => OK
Participles: 0.0557029177719 0.0416121511921 134% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79798803398 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0212201591512 0.026700313972 79% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.111405835544 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0291777188329 0.0255425247493 114% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0079575596817 0.0127820249294 62% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2231.0 2731.13054187 82% => OK
No of words: 349.0 446.07635468 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.39255014327 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.32221490584 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.429799426934 0.378187486979 114% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.358166189112 0.287650121315 125% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.263610315186 0.208842608468 126% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.157593123209 0.135150697306 117% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79798803398 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.501432664756 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 52.5364534887 52.1807786196 101% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 19.3888888889 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.9454456939 57.7814097925 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.944444444 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.3888888889 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.724660767414 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 55.2055078001 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.90361445783 1.8405768891 103% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.348592897702 0.441005458295 79% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.116792678691 0.135418324435 86% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0907651158418 0.0829849096947 109% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.539968761118 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.157773513909 0.147661913831 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.131287609124 0.193483328276 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0794791761948 0.0970749176394 82% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.387585859226 0.42659136922 91% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.127340720978 0.0774707102158 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.221799235672 0.312017818177 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0911652730187 0.0698173142475 131% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 1.0 8.33743842365 12% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 1.0 6.46551724138 15% => More positive topic words wanted.
Negative topic words: 13.0 5.36822660099 242% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.