The following is a memorandum from the business manager of WLSS television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with the station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, several local businesses that used to run advertisements during our late-night news program have just cancelled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand the coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs."
If something works, why should it be changed? Unfortunately, the channel in question decided to change methods that worked well and it backfired. It is logical to assume that going back to original methods would bring back previous viewership results that were lost from viewer disappointment in programming and loss of local business advertisement. However, reverting back to former kinds of programming does not guarantee that the channels viewership will go back to its original numbers.
It is very possible that going back to what they were doing before would not have any effect as far as advertisements are concerned. Businesses still need to sell products and television advertising is one way to do so. As such, it is very likely that these businesses made contracts with other channels following their termination of contract with the channel in question. As a result, it would be unlikely to assume that the channel would be able to negotiate once again with these companies given that they probably would have signed another contract with another channel already at this point in time.
Despite advertising playing a role in viewership, it is also unlikely that the channel would get its original viewers back if it went back to having more frequent weather reports. If the weather was such an important piece of information for people to keep aware of, the changes that led to not having it accessible on the channel in question would have led viewers to another channel that still continued to show it. As such, though possible, one cannot conclude that the reinstating of weather reporting on a more frequent basis would lure viewers back to the original channel and away from their new channels. Given that this new viewership probably led to increases in financial profit, the newer channels would work tirelessly to maintain those new viewers in order to keep prospering.
In essence, though it is technically possible that a bad decision could be reverted by going back to old methods, it is impossible to fully conclude this. Perhaps this channel would make note of their mistakes so that once they are able to build their viewership numbers once again, they will not make the same mistake once again.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-27 | jason123 | 69 | view |
| 2020-01-10 | ali.rs | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-03 | Navjot-kaur | 55 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | Reetin | 55 | view |
| 2019-12-19 | Shams Tarek | 73 | view |
- The following is a memorandum from the business manager of WLSS television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During 19
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 58
- "The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company. "According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies 37
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/over-past-year-our…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 370 350
No. of Characters: 1822 1500
No. of Different Words: 178 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.386 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.924 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 125 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 106 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 69 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 38 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.429 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.179 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.571 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.57 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.086 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 434, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'channels'' or 'channel's'?
Suggestion: channels'; channel's
...programming does not guarantee that the channels viewership will go back to its original...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, so, still, well, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 4.0 11.1786427146 36% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 44.0 28.8173652695 153% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1864.0 2260.96107784 82% => OK
No of words: 370.0 441.139720559 84% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03783783784 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.38581623665 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68780896265 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 568.8 705.55239521 81% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.4087642616 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.142857143 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4285714286 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.35714285714 5.70786347227 59% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0540568797902 0.218282227539 25% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0224129088332 0.0743258471296 30% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0219715826193 0.0701772020484 31% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0332238724467 0.128457276422 26% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0192344489219 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.21 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.