The following appeared in a memo to the board of the Grandview Symphony.
"The city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony since the symphony's inception ten years ago. Last year the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, who has been able to attract high-profile guest musicians to perform with the symphony. Since then, private contributions to the symphony have doubled and attendance at the symphony's concerts-in-the-park series has reached new highs. Now that the Grandview Symphony is an established success, it can raise ticket prices. Increased revenue from larger audiences and higher ticket prices will enable the symphony to succeed without funding from the city government."
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.
In the memo, the author mentioned that the Grandview symphony can raise the ticket price and can sustain without government funding. The author had come to those conclusions based on the recent success and private contribution of the high profile guest because of the newly hired conductor, last year. However, before the argument can be properly evaluated, three pieces of evidence must be analyzed.
First of all, the author mentioned last year, Grandview symphony hired an internationally known conductor. And that was the reason why private contribution goes up and high- profiled musicians performed with the symphony. Maybe the success was happened due to the group work of the conductor with other staff and musicians. Also possible that the economy was good that year or there was a tax reduction that's why private contributions ballooned. However, if the following evidence has merits then the main argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, the author stated that Because of the success, the symphony should raise the ticket prices. Perhaps, the high ticket price can reduce the audience of the symphony, it is possible that the rising audience because of the less costly ticket or maybe free. When they raise the price there is a huge possibility to lose the numbers of audiences, the symphony can face loss.
Finally, as the author mentioned that symphony can sustain without the Grandview government funding, which was given the symphony for ten years. Even if the symphony can maintain profit and sustain without the funding. But it is possible that the concert profits and private contribution may decline and at that time they also do not have the funding. However, if the above evidence is true, then the main argument cannot hold water. In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is considerably flawed, because of its reliance on the unwarranted recommendations. If the author can provide three evidence stated above and go through proper systematic analysis, then it will be possible if the symphony can raise the ticket price and decline the government fundi
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-13 | samira@ | 63 | view |
| 2019-10-30 | tulipkatie | 55 | view |
| 2019-10-26 | christine_cui | 59 | view |
| 2019-03-01 | monil | 65 | view |
- The two maps below show road access to a city hospital in 2007 and in 2010.https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjFn7z21K3mA... 78
- he two pie charts below show the percentages of industry sectors' contribution to the economy of Turkey in 2000 and 2016.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant. 73
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company."Several recent surveys indicate that home owners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home 59
- 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 than i 38
- The line graph shows visits to and from the UK from 1979 to 1999, and the bar graph shows the most popular countries visited by UK residents in 1999.Summarize the information by selecting and reporting the main features and make comparisons where relevant 56
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 17 15
No. of Words: 338 350
No. of Characters: 1710 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.288 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.059 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.609 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 130 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 33 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.882 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.582 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 326, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...nductor with other staff and musicians. Also possible that the economy was good that...
^^^^
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: that's
... that year or there was a tax reduction thats why private contributions ballooned. Ho...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1758.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 338.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20118343195 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.28774723029 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.70585705587 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.488165680473 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 544.5 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 31.2053140714 57.8364921388 54% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 103.411764706 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.8823529412 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.88235294118 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => 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: 0.205871326408 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0735054216191 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0953641312629 0.0701772020484 136% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.131127790992 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0340731468096 0.0628817314937 54% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.88 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.94 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 72.0 98.500998004 73% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.