Retail company directors are always thinking of ways to boost business and productivity. The case of Monarch Books is no different. In this instance, the Board of Directors of Monarch Books suggests that opening a cafe in its store would boost customer numbers and enable them to compete with rival bookstores, specifically Regal Books. While this recommendation is made out of goodwill so as to improve business and upgrade services, the reasons surrounding this proposal are extremely flawed. Many statements were made based on assumptions, misguided use of statistics and lacked significant quantification.
The most striking claim made by the Board was that 'opening the café would attract more customers'. This was not backed by any statistics or examples on how such an addition would increase customer base. There is also no solid reasoning on why Monarch Books' customers would be increased from its present customer base by means of a cafe. The only clue we have about Monarch's present customers is that they are numerous and they are drawn by 'its wide selection of books'. The Board simply assumed people would be attracted to the bookstore if a cafe would be opened. No form of survey or studies have been done to quantify how much more customers would come if a cafe was opened in the bookstore.
Even more startling then the lack of quantification for their claims, the Board also suggested boldly that space for the cafe can be made by discontinuing the children's section based on data from the latest national census. They argue that children's books would attract less business due to the 'a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten'. Here, the Board uses a national data to justify their decision of a bookstore that might have been situated in a localised area and community. The data while representative of a nation as a whole, is not representative of the community or its own customer base. If demographics of the community it is situated in differ significantly from national statistics, closing the children's section would have been a very grave mistake.
Finally, the board also made a questionable analogy by juxtaposing Monarch Books with another company, Regal Books. Regal Books though also a bookstore, might be have a significantly different customer base. It might specialise in selling a certain genre of books. If its specialises on selling lifestyle books such as cooking, art and travel books, then probably a cafe would be welcomed by readers in the bookstore. Furthermore, it is also not clear why Regal Books would decide to open a cafe. It might have done so for reasons other than attracting more customers such as providing a better reading experience for its customers. There is also no indication that Regal Books attracted more customers as a result of opening a cafe.
It is noteworthy that the Board has come up with novel ideas to try to attract more customers to patronise its stores by providing more services. However, the proposal made lacked research and solid reasoning. Just because a rival bookstore has a cafe does not mean Monarch has to do the same. The proposal can be strengthened by justifying the costs of opening the cafe with comprehensive surveys. Potential customer base must be identified and interviewed. A demographic study of its current customer base has to be done. Most importantly, the benefits and costs of opening a cafe must be evaluated carefully to better understand the possible outcomes of such a decision.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 388, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
... recommendation is made out of goodwill so as to improve business and upgrade services, ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 21, Rule ID: LESS_MORE_THEN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'than'?
Suggestion: than
...n the bookstore. Even more startling then the lack of quantification for their cl...
^^^^
Line 5, column 292, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'the' or 'a' is left.
Suggestion: the; a
...ooks would attract less business due to the a significant decline in the percentage o...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'finally', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'as to', 'such as', 'as a result']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.261904761905 0.25644967241 102% => OK
Verbs: 0.177777777778 0.15541462614 114% => OK
Adjectives: 0.084126984127 0.0836205057962 101% => OK
Adverbs: 0.052380952381 0.0520304965353 101% => OK
Pronouns: 0.031746031746 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12380952381 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0714285714286 0.0416121511921 172% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.89187945556 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0222222222222 0.026700313972 83% => OK
Particles: 0.0015873015873 0.001811407834 88% => OK
Determiners: 0.109523809524 0.113004496875 97% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0301587301587 0.0255425247493 118% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00793650793651 0.0127820249294 62% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3522.0 2731.13054187 129% => OK
No of words: 584.0 446.07635468 131% => OK
Chars per words: 6.03082191781 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91590194646 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.333904109589 0.378187486979 88% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.287671232877 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.215753424658 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.145547945205 0.135150697306 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.89187945556 2.79052419416 104% => OK
Unique words: 256.0 207.018472906 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.438356164384 0.469332199767 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 52.3194173954 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 30.0 20.039408867 150% => OK
Sentence length: 19.4666666667 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.7340788006 57.7814097925 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.4 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.4666666667 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.366666666667 0.724660767414 51% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 48.2337899543 51.9672348444 93% => OK
Elegance: 1.74545454545 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.342460922712 0.441005458295 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.110891948869 0.135418324435 82% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0654030484878 0.0829849096947 79% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.4831720395 0.58762219726 82% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.10098844539 0.147661913831 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116936997345 0.193483328276 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568023849242 0.0970749176394 59% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.320571258211 0.42659136922 75% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0782017285473 0.0774707102158 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.227729512996 0.312017818177 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301856739183 0.0698173142475 43% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.33743842365 216% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.82512315271 145% => OK
Positive topic words: 16.0 6.46551724138 247% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 7.0 2.82389162562 248% => OK
Total topic words: 27.0 14.657635468 184% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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: 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.