The author supports the argument that advertising with Cable Communications Corp. increases the profits of a business. This statement is based on the case of Adams Car Dealership, which profits increase was up to 15% when using Cable Communication to advertise its products. While this argument seems to be convincing at first glance, it lies over various assumptions that make the statement suspicious and unreliable if carefully analyzed.
To begin with, the author did not specify whether or not Adams Car Dealership had previous advertising support. It may be the case that this company’s advertisement was being performed by a less fortunate consultant or itself, which would favor the writer’s announcement. However, if no advertisement was used before, it could lead to the idea that the real great way to increase profits is simply using advertisement to disseminate a brand throughout a spot of commerce. To make the argument reliable, the author should provide further details on this aspect. He should, for instance, include the historical changes of the kind of advertisement Adams Cars used and how Cable Communications improved it.
Additionally, the lack of information about the period of the year when this increase of profits took place undermines the argument. Herein, the author is assuming that the 15% of profits increase was made in a non-typical period of improvement. What if the increase of the profits was made in December? It is logical to imagine that people worldwide tend to spend more money in this month as the upcoming celebrations. Therefore, Adams Cars profits could have been increased due to the public behavior, regardless of the intervention of Cable Communications. The author should provide specific details about the period of time when this enhancement occurred and how much was the variation of profits relative to the previous month in the last years.
Last but not least, the author committed a fallacy when assuring the profit increase of a business based on Adams Cars experience. Even if Cable Communications Corp did have an influence on the augmentation of Adams Cars, it does not mean that its techniques and strategies would apply to any kind of business. To be transparent, the writer shall provide more examples of successful cases, including secondary facts such as type of market, geographical location, period of the year the increase was made, marketing techniques used, etc. This information would provide a better understanding of the work Cable Communications does, allowing the public to analyze the effect that it could have on their specific case. For example, Cable Communications Corp expertise could be the promotion of technology, then its services could not be useful at all for a small family business trying to sell manufacture, but for a computer trader.
In conclusion, the writer does not present an argument strong enough to be persuasive. Instead, it weakens the statement using various assumptions, including unsuccessful Adams Cars' advertisement prior to the intervention of Cable Communication Corp., the 30-days period when the increase of profit took place was not one of typical improvement, e.g. December, and the capability of Cable Communication techniques to work on any type of business. By providing further details to clarify the listed suppositions, Cable Communication Corp. would be more transparent and definitely trustful.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 43, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
... begin with, the author did not specify whether or not Adams Car Dealership had previous adver...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 614, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...ould provide specific details about the period of time when this enhancement occurred and how ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'e.g.', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'kind of', 'such as', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.285950413223 0.25644967241 112% => OK
Verbs: 0.148760330579 0.15541462614 96% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0776859504132 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0363636363636 0.0520304965353 70% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0231404958678 0.0272364105082 85% => OK
Prepositions: 0.112396694215 0.125424944231 90% => OK
Participles: 0.0380165289256 0.0416121511921 91% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.16040913033 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0330578512397 0.026700313972 124% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.117355371901 0.113004496875 104% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0231404958678 0.0255425247493 91% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0181818181818 0.0127820249294 142% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3436.0 2731.13054187 126% => OK
No of words: 540.0 446.07635468 121% => OK
Chars per words: 6.36296296296 6.12365571057 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.375925925926 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314814814815 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.240740740741 0.208842608468 115% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.17962962963 0.135150697306 133% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.16040913033 2.79052419416 113% => OK
Unique words: 250.0 207.018472906 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462962962963 0.469332199767 99% => OK
Word variations: 54.4856194135 52.1807786196 104% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.4782608696 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6289527675 57.7814097925 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.391304348 141.986410481 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4782608696 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.695652173913 0.724660767414 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 54.959742351 51.9672348444 106% => OK
Elegance: 2.09523809524 1.8405768891 114% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.391127798879 0.441005458295 89% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.119377287314 0.135418324435 88% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.077218813969 0.0829849096947 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.579792243146 0.58762219726 99% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.108716464155 0.147661913831 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172731517774 0.193483328276 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.062457010472 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.534939062551 0.42659136922 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0285938962524 0.0774707102158 37% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.295916211339 0.312017818177 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0522117355019 0.0698173142475 75% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 8.33743842365 192% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 16.0 6.46551724138 247% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.