The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:
“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satellite technology has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. That company is Techcorporation. A consumer survey last year indicated that over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider and would want to switch to another provider if the industry were not a monopoly. Thus, the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television will prove to be highly profitable for those who invest now.”
The following newsletter is highly encouraging its readers to invest their money into Techcorporation (a satellite technology development company) because it has been approved by the FTA and that surveys have illustrated that customers have been dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider. This advice should not be followed because it based on unstated assumptions and ill-defined evidence.
First, Techcorporation's functioning and business model is never explicitly defined. Based on the newsletter, investors have little to no information about what this company does or the quality of the company. The only information given is that it "has developed satellite technology that has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider". There is no quantitative evidence stating the quality of Techcorporation's satellite development. Just because it can compete with other current satellite providers does not mean it is the better. More information on how Techcorporation is not only different from the other current satellite providers, but also better (and worth the investment) is necessary before investors can even start thinking of looking into investing into this company.
Second, FTA is also never defined. A majority of the general public will not know what FTA stands for off hand. The statement is assuming that everyone knows what the FTA is and how it important it is (apparently). Without full description of what the FTA is and what it does, it is not wise to assume that they are a credible source.
One piece of empirical evidence that the newsletter does provide is the survey that states that "over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite tv provider and would switch". While empirical data is often used as legitimate and credible piece of evidence, this statement in particular takes it out of context of the current situation. That survey statement ends with "if the industry were not a monopoly". Previously it was stated that the FTA must approve a company before being in competition with other satellite provider. Thus, it is demonstrating that the FTA has power over which satellite providers are the public can choose from. The FTA has control over the satellite provider industry, and because (as we previously stated) it is not explicitly understood what the FTA is and what their intentions are, this industry is its own monopoly. Just because customers are dissatisfied, it does not necessarily mean that Techcorporation will be the satellite company that is outside the monopoly or that customers will flock towards this company over others.
Thus, it would be unwise to invest into Techcorporation with the information given in this newsletter alone. Before investing, it would be important to understand the market trends of the satellite provider industry and FTA's role within it and to fully understand what Techcorporation is and what it does.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 53, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...s also never defined. A majority of the general public will not know what FTA stands for off h...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, first, if, look, second, so, thus, while, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 55.5748502994 92% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2517.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 467.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38972162741 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.13342454664 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430406852248 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 811.8 705.55239521 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.3526279991 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.857142857 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.2380952381 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.71428571429 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156198087926 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0518299379519 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.043927256581 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0960021160409 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0424766181952 0.0628817314937 68% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.