The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals.
One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success in selling cereal, we recommend that Bargain Brand now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
There is a recommendation of the cereal which launched one year ago to the board of directors in Bargain Brand. The augur illustrates that the first product, breakfast cereal, attracted many consumers from the top-selling cereal business by its low price. Given the opponents’ strategies of lowing the price and start to sell the budget food, the arguer, therefore, claims that Bargain Brand should expand its business and begin selling other low-price food products as soon as possible. However, the argument is unconvincing because numerous equivocal assumptions must be made for a sound proof.
The arguer asserts that the first product of Bargain Brand, breakfast cereal, had attracted a great number of customers from the top-selling cereal company. Nevertheless, the arguer did not mention how the information comes from. It cannot be sure that the response is based on the customer survey or other reliable resources. Without the confident supporting of the information, the assertion is failed to convince me.
Despite the cereal has truly drawn the customers from the top-selling company, the success of the products should not assure in a mere year. It usually has to observe at least three years to confirm the status of the new products in the market. Perhaps the reason for the cereal’s good-selling is just the business cycle or the beginner’s luck. For example, the international mobile phone company, HTC, started with its significant stock price $1,300 and subsided to less than $80 in five years. In this case, it is hard to say that HTC is successful. Thus, if the cereal could occupy the market for several years and maintain its advantage, it could be proved that the task has the potential to proceed.
On the other hand, the arguer indicates that the top-selling company tries to lows their cereal price to compete with Bargain Brand. Although the arguer considers that is a symbol of the competitor also notices the of the commercial opportunity of budget cereal. It could be another possibility that the cereal market is at the end of the lifespan. The top-selling company only wants to minimize their loss by selling the cereal as more as possible. It would be more prudent if the arguer analyzes the major cause of the lower cereal price.
The arguer then recommends that Bargain Brand should expand the business and begin to sell the budget food. Yet the claim has a flaw of the increasing cost of the expanding business. It is inevitable to draw up the budget to develop a new product. There is no evidence shows that Bargain Brand has the enough funds for the other new products in these years. The arguer could not prove the object of launching new products would not cause the possible financial problems, it would be better to hold in abeyance and focus on the existent selling business.
Finally, it will be a question of the potential of budget food. Even if the cereal is truly successful, it does not mean that customers will like the budget food. The cakes, the pizza, and the other delicate food, for instance, are more important than their taste instead of their price. The possibility of business on budget food which is proposed by the arguer should examine more carefully.
To sum up, the argument is not convincing as it presents. The arguer should provide the stronger evidence to reinforce his/her recommendation. Without the sound proof, it will be imprudent to expand the business and start the new budget food.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 454, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...started with its significant stock price ,300 and subsided to less than 0 in five ...
^^
Line 7, column 79, Rule ID: TO_NON_BASE[1]
Message: The verb after "to" should be in the base form: 'low'.
Suggestion: low
...s that the top-selling company tries to lows their cereal price to compete with Barg...
^^^^
Line 7, column 134, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...al price to compete with Bargain Brand. Although the arguer considers that is a symbol o...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 438, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[1]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...heir loss by selling the cereal as more as possible. It would be more prudent if ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, as to, at least, for example, for instance, to sum up, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2907.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 582.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 4.99484536082 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91168771031 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.69521257591 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 204.123752495 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.451890034364 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 870.3 705.55239521 123% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 19.7664670659 157% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.8808848278 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 93.7741935484 119.503703932 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7741935484 23.324526521 80% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.77419354839 5.70786347227 84% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 5.15768463074 136% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296919801466 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0824851712597 0.0743258471296 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101776568433 0.0701772020484 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.157562427785 0.128457276422 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.11273897345 0.0628817314937 179% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 61.67 48.3550499002 128% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.66 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 126.0 98.500998004 128% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
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: 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.