In his memo, the Grandview budget planner asserts that the city ought to cease funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra. He rationalizes his position by citing increases in symphony funds from alternative sources, arguing that the symphony no longer requires financial support from the city of Grandview. While it is feasible that his assumption might ultimately prove sound, he should address three questions in order to bolster the validity of his argument and convince the city to adopt his recommendation.
First, the budget planner should address a question regarding the increase in private contributions to the symphony last year: can the Grandview Symphony Orchestra rely on that financial support in future years as a regular contribution, or was last year's private contribution amount an anomly? Perhaps a local supporter of the arts died last year, leaving the local symphony with a sizable sum in his will. Or maybe the Grandview Symphony Orchestra's fundraising manager was particularly successfull last year, but is planning to retire next year. In either such instance, the symphony cannot assume that it will receive similar levels of private donations in future years. If this is the case, then the budget planner's proposal as stated in his memo rests upon shaky ground.
Additionally, the author of the memo should answer whether or not last year's concerts-in-the-park series attendence provided the Grandview Symphony Orchestra with a significant source of revenue which it can expect to maintain in future years. If, for instance, the performance series was actually sponsered by the city of Grandview as free-to-the-public events, that would explain why attendence doubled; it would not, however, equate to a decreased need for municipal funding on the part of the symphony.
Furthermore, the memo's writer needs to provide more information regarding the increase in symphony ticket prices scheduled for next year. Is the Grandview Symphony Orchestra increasing prices merely enough to keep pace with inflation, or is it raising prices significantly beyond that amount? And is there any evidence to support that ticket sales will maintain consistent levels despite the increase in prices? If prices are not increased beyond the rate of inflation, or if ticket sales actually plummet due to price hikes, then the price increase scheduled for next year may not actually result in a decreased need for funding from the city as the budget planner claims.
To conclude, while Grandview's budget planner might be wise in suggesting that the city desist financial support of the Grandview Symphony Orchestra moving forward, his argument as it stands now remains weak due to unanswered questions. If the budget planner wishes to enhance the persuasiveness of his argument, he should address the three questions outlined above.
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state even if these areas could be developed for economic gain Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position
- The following appeared in a recommendation from the planning department of the city of Transopolis Ten years ago as part of a comprehensive urban renewal program the city of Transopolis adapted for industrial use a large area of severely substandard ho
- The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview It is time for the city of Grandview to stop funding the Grandview Symphony Orchestra It is true that the symphony struggled financially for many years but last year priva 78
- The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian a company that manufactures men s clothing Five years ago at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric we discontinued production of 68
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2352 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.262 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.773 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 27.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.852 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.384 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.618 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.138 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 712, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'planners'' or 'planner's'?
Suggestion: planners'; planner's
...s. If this is the case, then the budget planners proposal as stated in his memo rests up...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 52, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...y, the author of the memo should answer whether or not last years concerts-in-the-park series ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 18, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'memos'' or 'memo's'?
Suggestion: memos'; memo's
...rt of the symphony. Furthermore, the memos writer needs to provide more informatio...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, so, then, while, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2404.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 445.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.40224719101 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59293186426 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92271014066 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485393258427 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 725.4 705.55239521 103% => 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
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.125345824 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 150.25 119.503703932 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8125 23.324526521 119% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.8125 5.70786347227 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.455159571693 0.218282227539 209% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160558306308 0.0743258471296 216% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.108607486254 0.0701772020484 155% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.256085670515 0.128457276422 199% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0382461182915 0.0628817314937 61% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.9 14.3799401198 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.2 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.