The following appeared in an announcement issued by the publisher of The Mercury, a weekly newspaper:
“Since a competing lower-priced newspaper, The Bugle, was started five years ago, The Mercury’s circulation has declined by 10,000 readers. The best way to get more people to read The Mercury is to reduce its price below that of The Bugle, at least until circulation increases to former levels. The increased circulation of The Mercury will attract more businesses to buy advertising space in the paper.”
The above argument states that a new marketing strategy of The Bugle, decreasing the price of a newspaper, has affected the demand of The Mercury for the last five years. Therefore, the Mercury plans to make the price lower than their competitor to attract more readers. Moreover, the author claims that it will rise the number of clients who will post their advertisements in the Mercury’s newspaper. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no lucid evidence. Hence, the argument is not convincing and has several loopholes.
First, the author claims that there is a direct link between a declined number of readers and the introduction of a new price strategy of a rival, The Bugle. Nevertheless, he has ignored several facts. For instance, the decreased demand might be a result of the diminished level of a quality of articles. Additionally, there might be other competitors applying various marketing strategies. Moreover, the author has not mentioned the circulation of The Bugle. Hence, we are not aware of situation at the market. So, there could be other reasons as for example, the market totally, not only the circulation of The Mercury, has decreased because people start to prefer internet sources of news to newspapers. The author has overlooked all these factors, hence, the argument cannot be concluded on the basis of these statements.
Another point is about the author has not mentioned the fields of newspapers. Whether the areas of topics of these two newspapers are totally different from each other, it is illogical to categorize them in the same group and compare. If The Bugle is political newspaper and The Mercury is medical newspaper, there is very low probability that they will affect each other circulation. Hence, it can be concluded that this argument is incomplete and deprived of enough evidence. Therefore, this conclusion is not very convincing.
There is one more low point of this argument. According to the conclusion of this argument, the risen level of circulation of the Mercury will affect the number of businesses who are willing to post advertisement in the newspaper. However, the author neglects the other circumstances. The increased number of readers does not signify the efficiency of advertising. Other facts as the fee of advertisement, the readership of newspaper and etc. are taken into account by businesses while selecting newspapers to publish their advertisement. The author has simply skipped this line of reasoning.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The author should take into consideration the current situation at the market overall, the degree of quality of newspapers articles, all competitors, and etc. Moreover, in order to be comparable the newspapers should have identical areas of topics. Before any decision is made, all these things must be considered. In the end, we can say that this argument needs a detailed study of many other factors and the author should have provided a few proofs and data to establish this relationship.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 435, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...ertisement, the readership of newspaper and etc. are taken into account by businesses wh...
^^^^^^^^
Line 10, column 252, Rule ID: AND_ETC[1]
Message: Use simply 'etc.'.
Suggestion: etc.
...f newspapers articles, all competitors, and etc. Moreover, in order to be comparable the...
^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'as for', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247803163445 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.138840070299 0.15541462614 89% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0826010544815 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0439367311072 0.0520304965353 84% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0193321616872 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.121265377856 0.125424944231 97% => OK
Participles: 0.0369068541301 0.0416121511921 89% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.00365710438 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0175746924429 0.026700313972 66% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.14762741652 0.113004496875 131% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.02460456942 0.0255425247493 96% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00527240773286 0.0127820249294 41% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3144.0 2731.13054187 115% => OK
No of words: 502.0 446.07635468 113% => OK
Chars per words: 6.26294820717 6.12365571057 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.392430278884 0.378187486979 104% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.288844621514 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.225099601594 0.208842608468 108% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.173306772908 0.135150697306 128% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00365710438 2.79052419416 108% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 207.018472906 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.462151394422 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 53.1495414881 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 16.7333333333 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.6465313704 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.8 141.986410481 74% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.7333333333 23.2022227129 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.466666666667 0.724660767414 64% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 45.6177954847 51.9672348444 88% => OK
Elegance: 2.00869565217 1.8405768891 109% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.523721448369 0.441005458295 119% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.101591629363 0.135418324435 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.056281092089 0.0829849096947 68% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.533063733659 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.186471299908 0.147661913831 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.215377375768 0.193483328276 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139240286397 0.0970749176394 143% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.556746238052 0.42659136922 131% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0739175177381 0.0774707102158 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.400547112669 0.312017818177 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103105972162 0.0698173142475 148% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.33743842365 48% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 12.0 4.82512315271 249% => Less neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 6.0 2.82389162562 212% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
More arguments wanted.
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.