The following is part of a business plan created by the management of the Megamart
“Our total sales have increased this year by 20 percent since we added a pharmacy section
to our grocery store. Clearly, the customer’s main concern is the convenience afforded by
one-stop shopping. The surest way to increase our profits over the next couple of years,
therefore, is to add a clothing department along with an automotive supplies and repair
shop. We should also plan to continue adding new departments and services, such as a
restaurant and a garden shop, in subsequent years. Being the only store in the area that
offers such a range of services will give us a competitive advantage over other local
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument that best way to increase profits as much as possible in the area should be to expand shops and services in the store versus local merchandises is not entirely logically convincing, because it ignores certain crucial assumptions.
Firstly, the argument assumes that opening new shops in the same place with remaining sections in the store is the surest way. Author’s assumptions is based on just a determinant but there is no other evidence related to affordability of this method. Assumption demand additional data to satisfy readers to persuade them to its argument’s conclusion. For example, one-stop shopping is good evidence to support assumption but not enough, system also improves quality of product and services could make stronger position.
Secondly, the argument claimed its method for increase gains but didn’t provide details about profitability of store. Adding pharmacy shop increased 20 percent sales but maybe opening a clothing department or automotive supplies and repair shop will not achieve same success. Because online shopping of clothing would decrease purchases with lower price tags and additionally, people mostly changes parts of their cars and repairs it from where they bought their vehicle in comparing store repair shop. For example, when your car’s engine failed, trusting original company service is more trustable than local store, when comparing skills and professionalism of repairers.
Thirdly, the argument never addresses attitude of municipality about big store that owns many sections. Such stores or shopping malls certainly threat local shops survival in the future which lead to unemployment and monopoly in the location where they are situated in. most governments passed or are passing legislations or laws to protect small merchandises from their big rivals. It is nearly impossible in big cities to prevent but in rural, people also reject shopping malls. For example, Wal-Mart services across the United States and forced to bankruptcy or close of local sellers in every state.
Finally, the argument omits thoughts of people in the area. In rural where locals have good relations with store’s owners and even friendship. That make them loyal to the shops. Additionally, awareness of people also would lead them to buy from local stores rather than big one. Because they know that unemployment and monopoly increase when such shopping malls open.
Thus, the argument is not completely sound.
The evidence in support of conclusion could to ask people about their opinions or unifying local shops under one structure, maybe less profitable but renting shops to them both increase sales and make people happy.
Ultimately, the argument might have been weakened by flaws in the Author’s assumption.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 86, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
...s as much as possible in the area should be to expand shops and services in the s...
Line 4, column 605, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
... close of local sellers in every state. Finally, the argument omits thoughts of ...
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'finally', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'for example']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.295546558704 0.25644967241 115% => OK
Verbs: 0.127530364372 0.15541462614 82% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0951417004049 0.0836205057962 114% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0647773279352 0.0520304965353 124% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0344129554656 0.0272364105082 126% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.103238866397 0.125424944231 82% => OK
Participles: 0.0344129554656 0.0416121511921 83% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.78171000303 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0303643724696 0.026700313972 114% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0546558704453 0.113004496875 48% => Some determiners wanted.
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0141700404858 0.0255425247493 55% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0161943319838 0.0127820249294 127% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2800.0 2731.13054187 103% => OK
No of words: 431.0 446.07635468 97% => OK
Chars per words: 6.49651972158 6.12365571057 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55637350225 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.431554524362 0.378187486979 114% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.329466357309 0.287650121315 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.245939675174 0.208842608468 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.120649651972 0.135150697306 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78171000303 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 207.018472906 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570765661253 0.469332199767 122% => OK
Word variations: 68.6074899763 52.1807786196 131% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 19.5909090909 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1512459507 57.7814097925 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.272727273 141.986410481 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5909090909 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.636363636364 0.724660767414 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 8.0 5.14285714286 156% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.5375448218 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.91071428571 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.299336205897 0.441005458295 68% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0709100292957 0.135418324435 52% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0641405591304 0.0829849096947 77% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.547621628177 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.226202987099 0.147661913831 153% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116440787961 0.193483328276 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865473750042 0.0970749176394 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.188047029805 0.42659136922 44% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.12568367728 0.0774707102158 162% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.188459707159 0.312017818177 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562017045878 0.0698173142475 80% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 6.0 6.46551724138 93% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
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: 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.