According to the business manager, it is argued that their Folk on the Air program will convert their present emphasis on Latino and world music to traditional American folk music just as before. In the memo, it is the complaints of many long-term supporters and criticism from a local newspaper that prompt them to make the decision. Even if their apprehension seems sound and indeed, they need to change their existing mode, however, more available evidence is needed to reinforce the validity of the argument.
First of all, the identities of their long-term supporters who grumbled about their un-Ameircan partiality should be given in detail. To be specific, information about their races, ages, etc. should be illustrated. If those complaints, though many, merely came from some conservative, elderly white people who accounts for only a small proportion of their long-time supporters, then their new resolution might be inappropriate. Only through a full grasp of their listeners' requirements and thoughts could they reform their program properly. Therefore, it is necessary to provide more details about who grumbled so that the soundness of the argument could be judged.
Besides, another piece of evidence about the attributes of the so-called local newspaper is wanting. Even if the memo mentions an editorial critical of shift in programming, it remains to estimate whether such criticism is useful and essential. We could understand that the program endeavors to impede any opposing publicity from arising. Yet if the newspaper was inconsequential in most households of the local society or just absolutely recreation-oriented, there might be little value for the program to take such saying into account. In contrast, once the newspaper proves to play a significant role in shaping the views of local people, supporters of the radio included, if any, then the argument could be quite reliable. But what counts most is that the loss of the characteristics of the newspaper should be figured out.
In addition, the argument needs to offer more evidence about why they resolve to change their mode in this way-i.e., back to the one which allocate more time to traditional American folk music. Since it is not cogent that the program transforms in this way just because many complaints and some criticism from a local press. Why could they alter to mode into another, such as equally divide to time for traditional and un-American music. Therefor, more information about why they choose so would benefit supporting that the new-to-come mode is the most appropriate way.
Based on the evidence above, the argument would be enhanced to a convincing one by providing more information about supporters who complained, the local newspaper and why they choose to mode in the new way.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 89, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'convert'
Suggestion: convert
...that their Folk on the Air program will converted their present emphasis on Latino and wo...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 14, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lidity of the argument. First of all, the identities of their long-term suppor...
^^
Line 3, column 424, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('fully') instead an adjective, or a noun ('grasp') instead of another adjective.
...on might be inappropriate. Only through a fully grasp of their listeners requirements and tho...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 515, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a proper way" with adverb for "proper"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...houghts could they modify their program in a proper way. Therefore, it is necessary for to prov...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 122, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...complained, the local newspaper and why the choose to mode in the new way.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, but, first, however, if, so, then, therefore, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in contrast, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 28.8173652695 118% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2043.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 393.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19847328244 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45244063426 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9877693133 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493638676845 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.6619072162 57.8364921388 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.176470588 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.1176470588 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11764705882 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146441790326 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0494997614602 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0642663906277 0.0701772020484 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0899550244871 0.128457276422 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0720336062364 0.0628817314937 115% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.