The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
"Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the
argument.
The business manager of the TV station suggests the increase of local weather and news program citing the complains of people for less of such program in TV, lately.
The manager comes to this argument based on two major premises, which, if true, could indicate that the argument holds water. However, the conclusion relies on three major unwarranted assumptions, that serves their purpose of weakening the argument's persuasiveness.
First, the possibility that the system of review and complain collection of the TV being variably efficient throughout the time, severely weakens the collusion. The author makes an unwarranted assumption that the collection of complains weren't more efficiently lately, leading to increased report of viewer’s discontent. For example, perhaps the viewers were discontent with the programs that run on the television since before the reporting of reviews. Perhaps, the weather and local news before declining their share of screen presence was still not enough for people. For example, there could be a group of people who targetedly have made all the complains about the program and perhaps the people who were more content did not find it necessary to provide positive feedback. If above mentioned cases are true, the director’s argument would not hold water.
Second, the author makes an unwarranted assumption that if the number of complain rises for a certain program, the total number of people discontent with the television grows. For example, may be there are more people, who are happy with the television's decision to increase time to national news than the ones who are discontent. Similarly, for incidence, there could be increasing share of national news lovers within the television viewers who are super content with the television's decision. The case renders the director’s conclusion flawed.
Similarly, the possibility of existence of reasons, behind the losing of the advertisements, beyond the contents of the television, cannot be neglected. The author unreliably assumes that the decrease in advertising deals has to do with what the television has been broadcasting. For example, there could be a wide economic phenomenon in the area, forcing the companies to cut-off their advertising expenditure.
Similarly, it could be possible that the advertising companies are discontent with the pricing scenario of the advertising market, because of new players (television companies) coming in. In that case, perhaps it is the company's pricing policy that needs a re-look. Many such scenario, based on the above-mentioned possibility, renders the managers conclusion weak.
Finally, the logic behind the development of the conclusion is problematic. As of now, the argument does not look strong enough because of its reliance on nebulous foundations. To be able to fully evaluate the credibility of the author, more evidence flouting the above-mentioned ill-assumptions should be offered (in a systematic and scientific way)
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-09-26 | seoul_milk | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-09 | gre_test | 63 | view |
| 2023-08-22 | Ataraxia-m | 66 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | DCAD123 | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | yuktapradeep | 55 | view |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2455 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.337 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.911 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 152 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 110 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 75 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.612 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.288 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.457 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.067 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 240, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...t serves their purpose of weakening the arguments persuasiveness. First, the possibili...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 238, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: weren't
...mption that the collection of complains werent more efficiently lately, leading to inc...
^^^^^^
Line 8, column 147, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'players'' or 'player's'?
Suggestion: players'; player's
... the advertising market, because of new players television companies coming in. In that...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 338, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'managers'' or 'manager's'?
Suggestion: managers'; manager's
...bove-mentioned possibility, renders the managers conclusion weak. Finally, the logic ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, look, may, second, similarly, so, still, as to, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2533.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.51851851852 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00846769427 2.78398813304 108% => OK
Unique words: 227.0 204.123752495 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494553376906 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 779.4 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.3215185132 57.8364921388 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.136363636 119.503703932 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8636363636 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175854311316 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0485987409944 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0702691901441 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0918884227085 0.128457276422 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0981999188533 0.0628817314937 156% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.74 12.5979740519 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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.