The argument presented suffers from glaring weaknesses in it's reasoning and it's lack of evidence. It's reasoning relies on several assumptions, all of which are unsupported.
Firstly, the argument above assumes that sales of Davis' products are a result of it's high prices. However, the passage neglects to support this statement. Without supporting evidence, one could easily imagine a number of reasons that may result in a decline in sales. A poor quality product may be driving consumers away. Also, Davis' poor sales performance may not be a result of their high prices but of the emergence of competitors, thus providing consumers with greater choice. Alternatively, the sales of the computer-chip manufacturing industry as a whole may be in decline as a result of the emergence of a substitute product.
A second assumption is that which states that Davis could lower the price of it's product and thus become more competitive. The article does not highlight how low Davis is able to lower it's prices. It is conceivable that Davis may only be able to afford to lower it's prices to a level which remains uncompetitive. Under such a situation, it is difficult to see how Davis could become more competitive vis-a-vis it's rivals.
Furthermore, the argument has assumed that a lowering of prices will be sufficient for the firm to capture a greater share of the market. Following on from the previous point, it is impossible to see how a larger consumer base could result in a market competing purely on price. Additionally, it is plausible that there is simply no room left for Davis to lower prices further. Potentially, the firm is making a minimal profit from the sale of it's product and therefore has little room available to adjust prices. In this case, Davis is simply an inefficient producer of computer chips.
As stated, the problems in the articles' reasoning are multiplied by it's lack of supporting evidence. Figures proving that a lower price could succeed in capturing a larger market share would greatly strengthen the arguments' conclusion. Facts which prove that Davis' product is comparable in quality to it's lower priced rivals would add greater credence to the arguments' assertion that Davis could improve it's market share.
In conclusion, the flawed assumptions of the argument are highlighted by the lack of evidence it cites. The argument's claim could be greatly strengthened by rendering these assumptions inviolable through the use of appropriate evidence.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 215, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...rket share would greatly strengthen the arguments conclusion. Facts which prove that Davi...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 360, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ivals would add greater credence to the arguments assertion that Davis could improve its ...
^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in conclusion', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.255079006772 0.25644967241 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.158013544018 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.079006772009 0.0836205057962 94% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0496613995485 0.0520304965353 95% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0406320541761 0.0272364105082 149% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.130925507901 0.125424944231 104% => OK
Participles: 0.0428893905192 0.0416121511921 103% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.91185928691 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0270880361174 0.026700313972 101% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.10835214447 0.113004496875 96% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0338600451467 0.0255425247493 133% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0180586907449 0.0127820249294 141% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2493.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 406.0 446.07635468 91% => OK
Chars per words: 6.14039408867 6.12365571057 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.394088669951 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.300492610837 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.20197044335 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.152709359606 0.135150697306 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91185928691 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 193.0 207.018472906 93% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.475369458128 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 51.4563614003 52.1807786196 99% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 18.4545454545 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.124483467 57.7814097925 57% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.318181818 141.986410481 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.4545454545 23.2022227129 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.14285714286 117% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 48.5038065383 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.72727272727 1.8405768891 94% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.423782422544 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.12924912822 0.135418324435 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0946330080124 0.0829849096947 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.577710462584 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.160137161069 0.147661913831 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.153796298908 0.193483328276 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0615837385305 0.0970749176394 63% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.301880065119 0.42659136922 71% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0767367905788 0.0774707102158 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241188330383 0.312017818177 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0474766610267 0.0698173142475 68% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.