Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. Only about 2 percent of customers have filed a formal complaint, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers cannot distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine. Thus, to avoid the expense of purchasing butter, the Happy Pancake House should extend this cost-saving change to its restaurants throughout the rest of the country.
Customers tend to enjoy variegated tastes while having Pancake. Some might love butter pancake, whereas some go for other tastes. Although the customers in southern United States loved the taste of margarine as well or did not find any difference in the taste, perhaps the customers in other parts of country might not prefer margarine. The given premises are valid, however, it seems incomplete and need further even more deliberate survey to come to a more tenable, valid and reliable conclusion. The argument is rife with holes and fallacious assumptions.
Citing the survey, the author implies that only 2% are filing complaint regarding the replacement of butter with margarine. However, It is not clear the validity and scope of survey. We do know nothing about the sample size. Perhaps the sample size could be very small, not representing the population properly. Even from the small sample size, perhaps the majority of sample collected could not distinguish the taste of butter from margarine.
Furthermore, the author needs to look at other substitutes apart from margarine. Perhaps, the customers like other tastes over margarine and butter. That way also, the restaurant could save money by serving less expensive substitutes of their preferences.
The author, in this argument, assumes that people of other parts of USA will be going to like the margarine pancake to the same extent as is liked by the southwestern USA. Along with this assumption is the presumption that people of other parts of USA will also not be able to distinguish the taste of butter from margarine. It is to be noted that, without any doubt, the author should not make a generalized assumption to duplicate the same result as obtained in a specific location. For example, in Nepal, people living in Tarai region likes the taste of cinnamon; whereas, people living in Hilli region does not like it at all. So, if we do the business of cinnamon flavored food business in Hilli region based upon its success in Tarai region, the business will turn out to be utterly debacle.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1673 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.878 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.52 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 118 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 80 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.056 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.872 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.611 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.512 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.122 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 257, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nsive substitutes of their preferences. The author, in this argument, assumes th...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, however, if, look, regarding, so, well, whereas, while, apart from, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1726.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 343.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.03206997085 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61916967934 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 185.0 204.123752495 91% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.539358600583 0.468620217663 115% => OK
syllable_count: 553.5 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 48.3744716371 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.8888888889 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0555555556 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.72222222222 5.70786347227 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.134693615652 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0439571286155 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0472781662689 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0770540636087 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00878631956673 0.0628817314937 14% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.8 14.3799401198 82% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.89 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 88.0 98.500998004 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.