The station manager of KICK recommends that KICK should include more call-in advice programs if it wants to gain a larger audience share in its listening area. To substantiate his recommendation, he mentions the success of another radio station WCQP by increasing the number of call-in advice programs two years ago, with the consequence of increment in the number of radio audience. What's more, he uses a nationwide survey, which concludes that many radio listeners are interested in call-in advice programs, to prove the validity of his recommendation. At first glance, this recommendation may seem quite plausible. With further analysis, however, there are quite a few logical fallacies hidden in the argument, making this recommendation totally unsound.
In the first place, the manager suggests a false cause and effect relationship in talking about the success of WCQP. He thinks that the success of WCQP in the increment of the radio audience is because of its decision to increase the number of call-in advice programs. Nonetheless concluding this cause and effect relationship just based on the time sequence of the events is absolutely incredulous. It is highly possible that the increment of the radio audience is due to its radio program called "Weekend Country Music" attracts more radio audience. Without solving this question, to attribute the success of WCQP to call-in advice programs is highly doubtful.
Secondly, even if this is the case, the success of WCQP doesn't mean that the same prescription in KICK will work as well since they are located in different places. Maybe people's life in Rockville is not very well and they live in stress or pains, longing for advice from someone to help them improve their current awful life while the people in Medway live a healthy and happy life, which means they do not need any advice from anyone at all. If the manager cannot answer this question about whether there will be discrepancy in the two places, the success WCQP means nothing to KICK.
Last but not least, it is a huge mistake to cite a nationwide survey in order to prove that the recommendation is valid. It is common knowledge the nationwide survey stands for an average level of interests of radio listeners. The fact that many radio listeners like call-in advice programs must not be applied to a specific place, Medway, since the situation in Medway could be an outlier in the survey. Had the manager give any data or analysis about the common flavor of radio listeners in Medway, the recommendation would have been more valid.
To sum up, unless the manager can give perfect answers to the questions such as the true reasons of the success of WCQP, the possibility of discrepancy in WCQP and KICK, flavour of radio audience in Medway and so on, I won't be convinced by this doubtful recommendation.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 385, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: What's
...rement in the number of radio audience. Whats more, he uses a nationwide survey, whic...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 270, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Nonetheless,
... the number of call-in advice programs. Nonetheless concluding this cause and effect relati...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...f this is the case, the success of WCQP doesnt mean that the same prescription in KICK...
^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nonetheless', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'well', 'while', 'such as', 'talking about', 'to sum up', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.27724665392 0.25644967241 108% => OK
Verbs: 0.12810707457 0.15541462614 82% => OK
Adjectives: 0.093690248566 0.0836205057962 112% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0458891013384 0.0520304965353 88% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0344168260038 0.0272364105082 126% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.143403441683 0.125424944231 114% => OK
Participles: 0.0248565965583 0.0416121511921 60% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.75926865881 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0267686424474 0.026700313972 100% => OK
Particles: 0.0019120458891 0.001811407834 106% => OK
Determiners: 0.114722753346 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0172084130019 0.0255425247493 67% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0038240917782 0.0127820249294 30% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2852.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 474.0 446.07635468 106% => OK
Chars per words: 6.01687763713 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.57801047555 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.371308016878 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.278481012658 0.287650121315 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.162447257384 0.208842608468 78% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116033755274 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75926865881 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 233.0 207.018472906 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491561181435 0.469332199767 105% => OK
Word variations: 56.4773487562 52.1807786196 108% => OK
How many sentences: 18.0 20.039408867 90% => OK
Sentence length: 26.3333333333 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.3261858637 57.7814097925 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 158.444444444 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.3333333333 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.833333333333 0.724660767414 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 54.1814345992 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 2.1376146789 1.8405768891 116% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.607276933404 0.441005458295 138% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.144170604195 0.135418324435 106% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0713066916731 0.0829849096947 86% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613004083586 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159672908964 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.267873896535 0.193483328276 138% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.135499503688 0.0970749176394 140% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.442232748411 0.42659136922 104% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0711093807752 0.0774707102158 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.418718171508 0.312017818177 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0879314552981 0.0698173142475 126% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.87684729064 29% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 5.36822660099 37% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => 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: 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.