It is reasonable that Davis Technologies would like to solve its problem of declining sales, however the suggested solution of dropping the prices of its chip is an ill-informed one. The argument's conclusion is founded on questionable assumptions, flaw reasoning and relies on the logical fallacy of the slippery slope argument.
The argument claims that the solution to Davis Technologies problem is to drop the prices of its computer chip. However, we would need to know more about how the prices of Davis' chip compare with their competitors. If they already offer their chip as one of the lowest in the market, decreasing the price of its chip might not have the intended outcome. In this case, Davis Technologies would be better off look into alternative explanations underpinning their declining sales. Perhaps it is the quality of their chip and not the price that is affecting their sales. Without knowing anything about Davis Technologies pricing strategies, one would not be able to tell how effective this solution will be if applied.
Furthermore, the claim states that decreasing the price of chips would help Davis compete in the highly competitive computer chip market. There is an unstated assumption that Davis could afford the drop in price of their computer chip. It is reasonable that in order for Davis to maintain the same profit margin as before, the drop in price could result in a drop in quality of their computer chips. This could have undesirable effects if Davis Technologies target market is avid gamers who are willing to spend top dollars for quality computer chips. Consumers might not be satisfied with the quality of subsequent chips and worse still could stop being customers entirely.
The statement also claims that with an increase sales of chip, Davis Technologies would be able to compete in the highly competitive computer chip market and thus substantially boost its market share. How the claim makes the connection between the two is unclear. Although there are other computer-chip maker out there, perhaps Davis Technologies is a pioneer in the industry in that they are competing in vastly different target market as the rest. For example, Davis Technologies could be targeting the market of low powered electronic devices and they already command the largest market share globally. Increasing sales is always a positive thing for any business, but claiming that the increase in sales of chips would bolster Davis's market share is clearly a stretch.
In conclusion, we can see that the claim is founded on tenuous arguments and flawed assumptions. More evidences would be needed to support and bolster the validity of the claim. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how the above statement will make for a cogent and convincing claim to help buck the trend of declining sales for Davis Technologies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 188, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...of its chip is an ill-informed one. The arguments conclusion is founded on questionable a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 304, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'makers'?
Suggestion: makers
... Although there are other computer-chip maker out there, perhaps Davis Technologies i...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'so', 'still', 'thus', 'for example', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.283433133733 0.25644967241 111% => OK
Verbs: 0.157684630739 0.15541462614 101% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0678642714571 0.0836205057962 81% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0499001996008 0.0520304965353 96% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0419161676647 0.0272364105082 154% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.129740518962 0.125424944231 103% => OK
Participles: 0.0439121756487 0.0416121511921 106% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.74456724087 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0219560878244 0.026700313972 82% => OK
Particles: 0.00199600798403 0.001811407834 110% => OK
Determiners: 0.0998003992016 0.113004496875 88% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0359281437126 0.0255425247493 141% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0119760479042 0.0127820249294 94% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2851.0 2731.13054187 104% => OK
No of words: 466.0 446.07635468 104% => OK
Chars per words: 6.11802575107 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64618479453 4.57801047555 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.356223175966 0.378187486979 94% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.272532188841 0.287650121315 95% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.190987124464 0.208842608468 91% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128755364807 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74456724087 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 207.018472906 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448497854077 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 50.0891201107 52.1807786196 96% => OK
How many sentences: 21.0 20.039408867 105% => OK
Sentence length: 22.1904761905 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.6721702734 57.7814097925 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.761904762 141.986410481 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.1904761905 23.2022227129 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.52380952381 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 49.4436950746 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.832 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.568071154251 0.441005458295 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.13085305868 0.135418324435 97% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0812497482965 0.0829849096947 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.57520322886 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.12474688662 0.147661913831 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.231885978538 0.193483328276 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.111361744755 0.0970749176394 115% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.501244332481 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0479488254207 0.0774707102158 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.389979894928 0.312017818177 125% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0751087728893 0.0698173142475 108% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.33743842365 120% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.87684729064 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 10.0 6.46551724138 155% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.