The city commissioner states that the funding to the symphony should decline since the contribution elevates and more people attend the concert-in-the-park let the price of the ticket increase. However, to make this prescription convince more public, some questions need answering to evaluate the claim.
The argument claims that private contributions in this year increased 200 percent that the Symphony can elaborate without the funding from the government. However, the Symphony’s private contribution is not in a stable situation that the donation might disappear in the next year because this is a free contribution, the Symphony cannot force people to donate each year. Furthermore, what is the simple of the private contribution? Although it increases 200 percent, the author doesn’t mention how much they earn. Maybe the donation is only in 2 percent of their source of the money. Even if their private donation is always at an increased state and over their perspective, the money might not afford all members of the Symphony since the money from private contributions cannot compare with the funding from the government.
The author still mentions the audience attendance concerts-in-the-park double than last year so that the Symphony might be more popular to get more audience to watch the performance. Nevertheless, the author forgets one important clue that concert-in-the-park is no charge. People are always willing to take anything free. Once the audience needs to buy the ticket to attendance at the concert, most people might decline their willingness to watch the concert. Besides, the reason that myriads of people full filled the concert-in-the-park probably not because the famous Symphony is. Most people such as adults are jogging, or elders are playing chess, or children are playing hide and seek in the park discover there is a concert held at the park in coincidence. Besides, is the concert-in-the-park helps the Symphony? It also needs a lot of money to hold a concert in the park that the Symphony is probably more severe after they held a concert-in-the-park.
The policy of increase the price might push the Symphony to a more dangerous state. Even though elevate the price might enhance the profit, the Symphony still needs to concern about the mood of the audience. Does the audience will reduce the willingness to attend the concert because of the increase in ticket prices. Maybe the audience is students in a lot percent that they cannot afford the higher price to see the concert. Or maybe the other audience thinks the increase in the price doesn’t respond to the facility or the quality in the concert, so they refuse to buy the tickets. Hence, increasing the ticket price might need more clues to strengthen the argument.
In conclusion, to make this article more convincing, the author must address the above questions.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 426 350
No. of Characters: 2093 1500
No. of Different Words: 186 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.543 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.913 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.653 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 112 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 68 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.286 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.827 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.619 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.341 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.341 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, still, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2149.0 2260.96107784 95% => OK
No of words: 419.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12887828162 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52432199235 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03303261729 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 204.123752495 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.458233890215 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 646.2 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 51.6932343367 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.333333333 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9523809524 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.28571428571 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.336421650954 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106021549919 0.0743258471296 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0567697645493 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188206392755 0.128457276422 147% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0568233080263 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 60.65 48.3550499002 125% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.5 12.197005988 78% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.47 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.48 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.