“In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual arts
than was the case in a poll conducted fi ve years ago. During these past fi ve years, the number of people visiting
our city’s art museums has increased by a similar percentage. Since the corporate funding that supports public
television, where most of the visual arts programs appear, is now being threatened with severe cuts, we can expect
that attendance at our city’s art museums will also start to decrease. Thus some of the city’s funds for supporting
the arts should be reallocated to public television.”
The presented argument claims that the city should reallocate a portion of its art funding to support public television. This claim is based on the flawed logic that, because art television viewership and museum attendance rates have increased historically at similar rates, a decrease in the availability of art television will result in a decrease in museum attendance. The argument is not sound, however, because the correlation between television viewership and museum attendance does not necessarily prove causation. It likely depends on many other factors.
Firstly, the author readily assumes that a decline in corporate funding for public television will result in decreased viewership of art television. In this assumption, the author fails to consider that corporations may decide to cut funding to other categories of public television and leave constant their contributions to the art category. Furthermore, even if the corporations were to slash art-specific funding, there is no guarantee that an alternative provider of funding, be it other corporations or advertising, would not be found.
Secondly, the argument assumes that the rise in viewership of art television caused the simultaneous rise in museum attendance. One must remember, however, that correlation does not prove causation and that there were likely other factors at play in these two trends. For example, it is possible that broader sentiment towards art has improved and that this change in sentiment fueled growth in both television viewership and museum attendance. It is also possible that the increase in museum attendance had no relationship whatsoever with television and was instead simply caused by the city procuring higher-quality exhibits.
Finally, the author did not include any information about the broader trends surrounding the situation being discussed. In evaluating the cause of the rise in art television viewership, it would be helpful to know if aggregate television viewership also expanded over the last five years or if the gains were specific to art television. It would be similarly helpful to understand if attendance at all museums increased or if art museums were the only beneficiaries over the last five years.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author had mentioned all of the relevant facts such as trends in aggregate television viewership and museum attendance. In not considering alternative explanations for the discussed events, the argument relies upon several unsubstantiated assumptions. Without additional information, the argument remains open to debate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-30 | gautam0196 | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-22 | dwglazer | 16 | view |
- “Two years ago Nova High School began to use interactive computer instruction in three academic subjects. The school dropout rate declined immediately, and last year’s graduates have reported some impressive achievements in college. In future budgets 69
- “In a recent citywide poll, 15 percent more residents said that they watch television programs about the visual artsthan was the case in a poll conducted fi ve years ago. During these past fi ve years, the number of people visitingour city’s art museu 16
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 168, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...trengthened if the author had mentioned all of the relevant facts such as trends in aggreg...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, second, secondly, similarly, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 18.0 19.6327345309 92% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 25.0 16.3942115768 152% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2308.0 2260.96107784 102% => OK
No of words: 407.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.67076167076 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22865829333 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.479115479115 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 731.7 705.55239521 104% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.7139037114 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.222222222 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6111111111 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.44444444444 5.70786347227 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.081321507509 0.218282227539 37% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.027871755535 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0207465532666 0.0701772020484 30% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0493664193991 0.128457276422 38% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0218758465474 0.0628817314937 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.68 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.