Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of our alpaca overcoat. Now that we have a new fabric supplier, we should resume production. This coat should sell very well: since we have not offered an alpaca overcoat for five years and since our major competitor no longer makes an alpaca overcoat, there will be pent-up customer demand. Also, since the price of most types of clothing has increased in each of the past five years, customers should be willing to pay significantly higher prices for alpaca overcoats than they did five years ago, and our company profits will increase.
The argument claims that the profits of the company will increase in due course of time. Since, they now have a reliable supply of reliable high quality fabric to manufacture alpaca overcoat, which they were lacking five years ago. In addition, their major competitor no longer manufactures alpaca overcoat the argument assumes that there will be pent-up customer demand. Stated this way the argument did not mention several key factors and manipulates facts, on which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument depends on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the sales of alpaca overcoat should go high because, they have not offered it from five years. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. For Instance, Apple company have launched I-phone 6 series in mid 2013 many of the customers were excited to buy them. Later in 2016 again they have launched I-phone 7 series with some minimal changes, mostly as a mimic to I-phone 6 after that product launch the sales of their company considerably went low. Unfortunately, I-phone 7 had barely changed from it's predecessor. So, the market keeps on changing day by day and people might not show the same interest in buying the product, which they have already seen five years ago.
Another example is that Motorola have introduced a model named Razer 1232 in the year 2002. That was a huge success and unfortunately company faces financial fluctuations the next year and google bought the company. Recently, when Lenovo bought the company they relaunch the same product and it was a disaster. This is because the customer interest have changed a lot over time. The argument could have been better if the author had mentioned relevant examples to justify his claim.
Secondly, the argument claims that since, the major opponent of the company dose not produce overcoats the customer demand will go up. Again, this statement is weak and unsupported. The argument does not mention any correlation between the customer growth and the production of overcoats by the opponent company. If the correlation was mention correctly with evidence then, the author would have sounded a bit better. In addition there is no clear evidence to say that the customer growth can go up since, the production of the major opponent went low.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company profits will increase, because the prices of the clothes have increased.
This statement is again unclear, the statement with out any substantive evidence will be a wishful statement. If the argument would have provide with explicit evidence which can illustrate that the sales of the company can go up as the prices of the clothes have increased then it would have considerably strengthened the argument. Hence, the conclusion is a statement with no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is weak and unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. Without this information the argument is unclear and will remain as a open debate.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 589, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
...s for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore the argument is weak, unconvincing and ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 288, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e company they relaunch the same product and it was a disaster. This is because t...
^^
Line 7, column 422, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[2]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: addition,
...hor would have sounded a bit better. In addition there is no clear evidence to say that ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 48, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...atement is again unclear, the statement with out any substantive evidence will be a wish...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 137, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'provided'.
Suggestion: provided
...l statement. If the argument would have provide with explicit evidence which can illust...
^^^^^^^
Line 12, column 214, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... argument is unclear and will remain as a open debate.
^
Line 14, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ar and will remain as a open debate.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, for instance, in addition, in summary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 16.3942115768 220% => Less nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2672.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 522.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11877394636 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77988695657 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.67510061449 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 238.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.455938697318 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 833.4 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 14.0 8.76447105788 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.6796626026 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.1379310345 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.86206896552 5.70786347227 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.88822355289 203% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.133789381804 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0380593811758 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.049876936919 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0634235111868 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0432328799512 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.12 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
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: 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.