Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with the station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, several local businesses that used to run advertisements during our late-night news program have just cancelled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to our news programs and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should expand the coverage of weather and local news on all our news programs.
The argument in hand states that as the channel shifted their focus from local news and weather to national news, the viewers started complaining and the sponsors cancelled advertising contracts with the news channel. So, in order to get more viewership and revenue, they are proposing to get back and increase local and weather news. However, the argument has many faults, unconvincing with no reasoning backing their claims and has many unsubstantiated assumptions with no evidence.
To start with, the statement is given by the business manager of the television station, whose job is to get more viewership and generate more revenue out of the organisation where he/she works, irrespective of the nature of the organisation. A news channel is more than a revenue making machine. A news channel has greater responsibilities to fulfill than just getting local businesses to advertise and increasing viewership. The business of news should not be related to the quality of the content and not business-minded.
Secondly, the argument only focuses on the change of structure of the late-night news and has no information about the rest of the time and what kind of content is broadcasted at other times. The customers who are complaining or the businesses advertising may have some other concern instead of the late night news. The argument does not provide any insight of the following.
Moreover, the claim made by the business manager has no solid evidence that indicates that changing the type of content will guarantee viewership and revenues. What if it does not? What if the problem is something else and not late-night show? It may also be that business manager has some personal benefit, so he framed this situation. There is no evidence to support this statement.
To conclude, the argument in its current state is not persuasive and convincing and lacks substantial ground to make a cogent case. The author, of the argument needs to provide further evidence to strengthen his/her claim and make his/her argument convincing with more reasons and information and with more clarity.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-31 | tomlee0205 | 78 | view |
| 2023-08-27 | yirtusemla | 50 | view |
| 2023-08-19 | riyarmy | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-30 | aryaman | 58 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | searchinglife06 | 66 | view |
- 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 in an 54
- 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. 62
- Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increasingly more time to covering national news and less time to covering weather and local news. During the same time period, most of the complaints we received from viewers were concerned with 58
- A nation should require all its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college rather than allow schools in different parts of the nation to determine which academic courses to offer. 50
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'kind of', 'to start with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.264864864865 0.25644967241 103% => OK
Verbs: 0.162162162162 0.15541462614 104% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0783783783784 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0459459459459 0.0520304965353 88% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0216216216216 0.0272364105082 79% => OK
Prepositions: 0.102702702703 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0405405405405 0.0416121511921 97% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.91169191828 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0351351351351 0.026700313972 132% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.124324324324 0.113004496875 110% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0108108108108 0.0255425247493 42% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0189189189189 0.0127820249294 148% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2100.0 2731.13054187 77% => OK
No of words: 340.0 446.07635468 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.17647058824 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29407602571 4.57801047555 94% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.367647058824 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.332352941176 0.287650121315 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223529411765 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.144117647059 0.135150697306 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91169191828 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 175.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514705882353 0.469332199767 110% => OK
Word variations: 54.0193580006 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.039408867 85% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.5026372968 57.7814097925 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.529411765 141.986410481 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.2022227129 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.647058823529 0.724660767414 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 53.2352941176 51.9672348444 102% => OK
Elegance: 1.77647058824 1.8405768891 97% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.460287899857 0.441005458295 104% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.157777464208 0.135418324435 117% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.109862561643 0.0829849096947 132% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.577238170056 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.196641713661 0.147661913831 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.178716845576 0.193483328276 92% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104515952055 0.0970749176394 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.367204139349 0.42659136922 86% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.11135846737 0.0774707102158 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.301189148551 0.312017818177 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0874219336542 0.0698173142475 125% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 6.0 5.36822660099 112% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.