To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population growth in our listening area, but that growth has resulted mainly from people moving here after their retirement. We must make listeners of these new residents. We could switch to a music format tailored to their tastes, but a continuing decline in local sales of recorded music suggests limited interest in music. Instead we should change to a news and talk format, a form of radio that is increasingly popular in our area.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of article recommends that it is a necessity to change the program format of the WWAC radio till to relieve the crisis of listener’s decrement. This recommendation cannot be accepted as it stands. It rests on the series of premises to support of each some vital questions are to be answered.
The first vague question which comes to the mind at first glance is that by the comparison of the whole population, what percent of the new dwellers of the WWAC listening area is old, as the article states the majority of the new citizens migrate to this spot after their retirement. However, it is shallow information with the ill-defined term majority. Even in a case which the 100 percent of the new population is old, if they cover solely forty percent of all the people, the alteration of the program's format to appeal the elder people’s taste is an abortive try since this change does not persuade the big portion of the people. The argument could have been fortified if the author had clearly presented the demographic statistic of that particular area.
Next, the author assumes that for the sake of continuous decline in the sale of the music record in that specific area, the people are less eager to listen to the music. Actually, this surmise leads to a list of unanswered questions. First of all, what is the numeric value of decrement in the music sale? If there is less than fifty percent decline in the sale, this assumption is shaky, inasmuch as the majority of the people prefer the listening the music. Moreover, if the percent is more than fifty, it does not cogently present that people do not like the music. In this case, the second question appears. What are the shopping sources to purchase the music records? Maybe the citizens buy the music records from the internet services. Or perhaps, they freely download the music from the web. Each of these scenarios would provide an alternative explanation for this decrease apart from the people's reluctance toward the music.
Finally, the author leaves another unresolved question about the demand for news and talk format at the WWAC listening area. Even though it has been asserted that those programs are popular in that spot, does there any further requirement for these types of the programs? Maybe the presented applications by the other radio stations are compelling and attractive which there is no other demand for the additional program, or perhaps the novel program could not compete with the ongoing programs. Therefore, total variation can lead to the extreme loss of listeners. If the author had presented the evidence that the current supply of news and talk programs in the radios is not sufficient, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the reasons mentioned above and is, consequently, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned to the demographic statistic after the current migration, the actual and valid clues that the people do prone to listen to the music. Moreover, there is sufficient requirement for the news and talk format program in the WWAC listening area. Without this information, the argument opens to debates.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-14 | neha shethia | 35 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | harshit kukreja | 69 | view |
| 2019-11-19 | didirou | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-09 | anshika mishra | 55 | view |
| 2019-11-05 | ramsay | 50 | view |
- Your school is going to improve the teaching quality of the teachers of their high school students(ages 14-18), which of the following methods do you think is better:1. To choose a group of excellent teachers; the teachers will attend an additional traini 76
- 1.Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain yo 66
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? People learn things better from those at their own level-such as fellow students or co-workers- than from those at a higher level, such as teacher or supervisors. 73
- 17.The following appeared in a memo from the director of a large group of hospitals."In a laboratory study of liquid antibacterial hand soaps, a concentrated solution of UltraClean produced a 40 percent greater reduction in the bacteria population th 72
- The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and s 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 898, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'peoples'' or 'people's'?
Suggestion: peoples'; people's
...nation for this decrease apart from the peoples reluctance toward the music. Finally...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'consequently', 'finally', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'apart from', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.243377483444 0.25644967241 95% => OK
Verbs: 0.137417218543 0.15541462614 88% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0844370860927 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.046357615894 0.0520304965353 89% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0165562913907 0.0272364105082 61% => OK
Prepositions: 0.129139072848 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0298013245033 0.0416121511921 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.67107629671 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0264900662252 0.026700313972 99% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.175496688742 0.113004496875 155% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0115894039735 0.0255425247493 45% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00993377483444 0.0127820249294 78% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3240.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 543.0 446.07635468 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.96685082873 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.346224677716 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.26335174954 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.187845303867 0.208842608468 90% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.1197053407 0.135150697306 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67107629671 2.79052419416 96% => OK
Unique words: 252.0 207.018472906 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.46408839779 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 54.7419835327 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 26.0 20.039408867 130% => OK
Sentence length: 20.8846153846 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.1597935511 57.7814097925 116% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.615384615 141.986410481 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.8846153846 23.2022227129 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.576923076923 0.724660767414 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 3.58251231527 28% => OK
Readability: 47.2197903386 51.9672348444 91% => OK
Elegance: 2.00826446281 1.8405768891 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.215687497189 0.441005458295 49% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122210969583 0.135418324435 90% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0843192762642 0.0829849096947 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.600921517699 0.58762219726 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.183352371244 0.147661913831 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0981465673725 0.193483328276 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0515079972079 0.0970749176394 53% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.621439923697 0.42659136922 146% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0668318448003 0.0774707102158 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.160918077723 0.312017818177 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.033838487798 0.0698173142475 48% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.