"Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter and to increase profitability, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants in the southeast and northeast as well."
The author concludes that Happy Pancake House should extend cost saving change to its restaurant by replacing butter with marganine. To support this claim the authors cites various premises; low percentage of people complainig, no complains of the customers and their incapability to distinguish margarine from butter. At first sight these premises seem to bolster the conclusion but meticulous analysis show otherwise. The failure of author's premises to prove the conclusion are explained below;
Firstly, the author states that only two percent of customers complained about maragrine. At first this seems to prove the conclusion as the percentage of complains is very low, but there is not mentioned the exact number from which percent is derived. It may be possible that number of people from which data is collected very less. But it may not be true that they are happy about the use of maragrine. It may be possible that Pancake's restaurant is the only one in their locality due which they have to accept changes.
Secondly, the author states that customers who want butter didn't complain when margarine is given to them instead of butter. However, it doesn't mean that they are satisfied with margarine. It may be possible that appearance of both butter and margarine be same or customers may be in hurry that they didn't have the time to notice that there is maragarine instead of butter.
Thirdly, the assumed that customers cannot distinguish margarine from butter. It might be due to the deceptive practices performed by restaurant's committee to reduce their expenses.Or customers may don't have any option to go without this restaurant due to which they have to accept changes made by restaurant's management committe.
In the sum, the author's conclusion was totally based on fallacious assumptions which leads to the failure of the argument. To make the argument more strong the author must have to provide the additional satatistics data regarding the behaviour of the people about the change in restaurant, number of other restaurants in nearby place. The availability of this information was required for further analysis of the argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 160, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...th marganine. To support this claim the authors cites various premises; low percentage ...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 357, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lected very less. But it may not be true that they are happy about the use of mar...
^^
Line 3, column 60, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...r states that customers who want butter didnt complain when margarine is given to the...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 137, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... to them instead of butter. However, it doesnt mean that they are satisfied with marga...
^^^^^^
Line 3, column 300, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... or customers may be in hurry that they didnt have the time to notice that there is m...
^^^^^
Line 4, column 134, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'restaurants'' or 'restaurant's'?
Suggestion: restaurants'; restaurant's
...to the deceptive practices performed by restaurants committee to reduce their expenses.Or c...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 181, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Or
...ants committee to reduce their expenses.Or customers may dont have any option to g...
^^
Line 4, column 198, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... reduce their expenses.Or customers may dont have any option to go without this rest...
^^^^
Line 4, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...due to which they have to accept changes made by restaurants management committe....
^^
Line 4, column 299, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'restaurants'' or 'restaurant's'?
Suggestion: restaurants'; restaurant's
...ch they have to accept changes made by restaurants management committe. In the sum, the a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s management committe. In the sum, the authors conclusion was totally based on fallaci...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, however, may, regarding, second, secondly, third, thirdly, as to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1807.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 348.0 441.139720559 79% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.19252873563 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31911543099 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75169599031 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 168.0 204.123752495 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.48275862069 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 567.0 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7178683028 57.8364921388 93% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.9375 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3125 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 5.25449101796 209% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => 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: 0.169352583113 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0597116883429 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0469683592969 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0962994476023 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0322317258336 0.0628817314937 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.82 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.