"According to a survey last year of parents who purchased the Elkie, our most popular doll, 90 percent reported that although their children were extremely satisfied with the doll's features, the doll quickly wore out with use. In a follow-up survey of the same parents, 80 percent reported that they would recommend a more durable version of the doll to their friends. In response to these surveys, we have created the Elkie-Advanced Doll, which has similar features to the original Elkie Doll but is manufactured using the same higher quality materials used by Optima Doll Manufacturing, our most successful competitor. Because parents can now purchase the beloved Elkie doll and be sure that it won't quickly wear out with use, we predict that our profits will exceed those of Optima Doll Manufacturing this year.
The presented argument appears to be relatively sound at the first glance, because the survey along with the follow up survey do indicate that people are content with the features of the doll Elkie, and would prefer the doll in a more durable form. This intimation hint to a higher sales number if the durability of the Elkie doll is improved. However, with a closer inspection on the issue, it is quite obvious to see that this argument is rather unconvincing, given the obvious fallacies in the logic.
First, the argument assumes that the people involved in the survey and the follow up survey are the true representative fraction of the target customers of the doll industry. There is a possibility that they might not sincerely represent the population of target customers. Hence, when a new advanced Elkie doll will be launched, the target customers might not buy the product; they might have a different preference and priority while purchasing dolls.
Similarly, the argument claims to increase the profit in Primo Doll Manufacturing by using a durable material with higher quality while continuing the similar advanced features that its predecessor had. But, incorporation of a higher quality material with advanced feature suggests a very high manufacturing cost. To earn a higher profit, the company will eventually have to increase their selling price that might make the customers hesitant in buying the doll. If they choose to continue with the same price, there is no guarantee that there would be skyrocketing high sales that ensures more profit even with lower profit margin.
Thirdly, the surveys were conducted last year and the Primo Doll Manufacturing Inc plan to launch their Elkie-Advanced Doll after a whole year. They plan to compete with their competitor Optima Doll manufacturing with the assumption that they have not made any improvements to their product. This leaves much room for discussion since there is a very high possibility that the Optima Doll Manufacturing may produce even better product, that would make the market even more competitive. Therefore, it would be quite imprudent to assume that their competitors would simply continue with their old products, and they can easily gather the expected profit.
Overall, the argument is not strong enough to conclude that improving the durability of the dolls would guarantee higher profit. Before any final decisions are made, proper market research about the product features of all their competitors should be done. Much work is left for the arguer to improve the logic and cogency of the argument. The argument can be strengthened by a guarantee that the survey population are the true representative population of the actual customers. Also, the manufacturing cost of the doll after improving its durability should be well-considered before drawing any conclusion. All of these adjustments would provide the argument with solid foundation.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 470 350
No. of Characters: 2417 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.656 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.143 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.768 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 93 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.331 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.551 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.08 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 106, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t glance, because the survey along with the follow up survey do indicate that people are c...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 72, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...t the people involved in the survey and the follow up survey are the true representative f...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, similarly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2475.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 470.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26595744681 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82339784187 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463829787234 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 775.8 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.0609973729 57.8364921388 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.75 119.503703932 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.5 23.324526521 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.1 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.287145597894 0.218282227539 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0945667250468 0.0743258471296 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0791424672439 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.175873961255 0.128457276422 137% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0587113884142 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.47 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 110.0 98.500998004 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.