The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview.
"When the Grandview Symphony was established ten years ago, the city of Grandview agreed to provide the symphony with annual funding until the symphony became self-sustaining. Two years ago, 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 tripled and attendance at the symphony's outdoor summer concert series has reached record highs. Now that the symphony has succeeded in finding an audience, the city can eliminate its funding of the symphony."
In the memo, the author recommends that the city can eliminate its funding of the symphony due the increase of private contributions and the attendance at the symphony’s outdoor summer concert series has reached record highs. While the argument sounds plausible at first glance, the assumptions are not entirely logically convincing, since it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
First, the recommendation relies heavily on the assumption that the symphony is self-sustaining due the increase in private contributions and attendance. Nowhere in the argument is stated when the Grandview Symphony is self-sustaining. Maybe, there is more profit needed to be self-sustaining. The fact that the symphony hired an internationally known conductor, may resulted in high costs for the symphony and the increase in private contributions and attendance don’t keep up with the expenditures of the known conductor. In this case is could be true that the Grandview Symphony needs more annual funding than it did before they hired the internationally known conductor. To bolster his argument the author needs to provide information that there is enough profit at the Grandview Symphony to be self-sustaining and that the city can eliminate its funding for the symphony.
Furthermore, the author of the recommendation assumes that the private contributions will be as high as they are now in the upcoming years. There is no proof that the private contributions will be as high as they are now. Maybe, there will be an economic setback and people cannot contribute as much to the Grandview Symphony as they can now or maybe there will be another event that requires private contributions and people are interested in that specific event as well, maybe they have to split the private contributions and the Grandview Symphony will get half of the contributions or in worst case, they will get nothing anymore, because the other event is much more popular. The author has made the assumption that private contributions stay consistent or even increase throughout the years, but he fails to provide evidence that this is true. He could survey people who give private contributions if they are willing to maintain this contribution, this would buttress his argument, but even than it would not be entirely logically convincing, since we cannot see what the economic future holds for us.
Finally, just like the above assumption, the author assumes that the attendance to the symphony will be as high as the previous years. It could be that people are not interested in the symphony anymore, because they have already seen it a couple of times or there are other, more attractive, events in the upcoming years. If the Grandview Symphony keeps hiring the same international known conductor, maybe the visitors of the Grandview Symphony will get boring and loses visitors. It is not guaranteed that the attendance to the Grandview Symphony will reach records high over the years. If the author could provide information about the interest in visiting the Grandview Symphony in the upcoming years and it would be the same as the past two years, it could bolster the author’s argument.
In conclusion, the assumptions in the argument are not entirely logically convincing. The author needs to give more evidence about upcoming private contributions and visitors to the Grandview Symphony. Even when he would provide such evidence, it is not guaranteed that people will give the same private contribution, because we do not know what the economic future holds for us, and therefore it cannot be concluded if there will be the same amount of private contributions as in the present. The same is true for the number of visitors. The author needs to provide more sufficient information to bolster his argument.
- 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 co 77
- The following appeared in a memo from a budget planner for the city of Grandview."When the Grandview Symphony was established ten years ago, the city of Grandview agreed to provide the symphony with annual funding until the symphony became self-susta 66
- “A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.”Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the pos 54
- Topic: The following is 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 in any 26
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree 54
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 543, Rule ID: IS_SHOULD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
...es of the known conductor. In this case is could be true that the Grandview Sympho...
^^
Line 6, column 590, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'in the worst'.
Suggestion: in the worst
...y will get half of the contributions or in worst case, they will get nothing anymore, be...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3202.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23202614379 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04156385498 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.343137254902 0.468620217663 73% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 996.3 705.55239521 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.7191164065 57.8364921388 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.217391304 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6086956522 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65217391304 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229969536191 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0905441116071 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0850765975118 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158237087513 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0935854833116 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.45 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 543, Rule ID: IS_SHOULD[1]
Message: Did you mean 'it'?
Suggestion: it
...es of the known conductor. In this case is could be true that the Grandview Sympho...
^^
Line 6, column 590, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'in the worst'.
Suggestion: in the worst
...y will get half of the contributions or in worst case, they will get nothing anymore, be...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, furthermore, if, may, so, therefore, well, while, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 33.0 19.6327345309 168% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3202.0 2260.96107784 142% => OK
No of words: 612.0 441.139720559 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23202614379 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.97379470361 4.56307096286 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04156385498 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.343137254902 0.468620217663 73% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 996.3 705.55239521 141% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 89.7191164065 57.8364921388 155% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.217391304 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6086956522 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.65217391304 5.70786347227 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.229969536191 0.218282227539 105% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0905441116071 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0850765975118 0.0701772020484 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.158237087513 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0935854833116 0.0628817314937 149% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.5 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.45 8.32208582834 90% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.