Butter has now been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States Only about 2 percent of customers have complained indicating that 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change Furthermore many server

In the memo, the business manager of the Happy Pancake House restaurant concludes that the butter should be supplanted by margarine in the Happy Pancake restaurants in the southeast and northeast regions of the United States since it is more profitable. Also, most of the customers in the southwestern area are content with this change and do not complain when they are given margarine instead of butter when they ask for butter. This happened because the customers either could not distinguish between butter and margarine or used the term 'butter' to refer to both butter and margarine. Nonetheless, while the contention drawn by the manager might hold water, it rests on several unfounded assumptions that, if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, the following questions must be addressed.

First of all, are the customers of the southeast or northeast region as bad as customers in the southwest in differentiating between butter and margarine? It is possible that people in different areas have a different sense of distinguishing between butter and margarine. Many customers in those regions might be able to discern that margarine is used instead of butter in their cake and become upset or discontent. If this scenario has merit, then the author's assertion that people in other areas might have no problem with this plan since the people of this region did not show any kind of discontent is significantly hampered.

Secondly, can the result of one survey in one region be applied to other regions? It is probable that if the same survey were conducted in southeast and northeast regions, the result would be the opposite. For example, over 90 percent of people in these regions complain about using margarine in their cakes instead of butter. The argument does not hold water if the above is true. It is not a wise decision to make a big and noticeable change in foods made in all the restaurants throughout the country only based on the result of the survey in one region.

Finally, is the price of butter and margarine the same all over the country? Maybe margarine is less expensive than butter in southwest regions, but the situation is quite the opposite in northeast and southeast regions. Moreover, if the customers in these regions do not like the usage of margarine in their cakes, those restaurants have no choice but to either throw away all the cakes made out of margarine or give them for free to poor people. If either of these scenarios is true, the credibility of the manager's claim that using margarine instead of butter is more 'affordable' decreases substantially.

In conclusion, it is possible that baking cake with margarine instead of butter might work out in the southeast and northeast region as well as the southwest area. Nevertheless, as it stands now, the argument stands on three unanswered questions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Therefore, the author has to provide answers to the three following questions: are all people equal in distinguishing between the taste of margarine and butter?, can the result of one survey in one region be applicable in other parts?, and, is using margarine instead of butter affordable in all areas?

Votes
Average: 6.3 (2 votes)
Essay Categories

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...t. If this scenario has merit, then the authors assertion that people in other areas mi...
^^^^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, kind of, as well as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 86.0 55.5748502994 155% => OK
Nominalization: 6.0 16.3942115768 37% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2725.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 541.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03696857671 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82280071112 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82907090591 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 204.123752495 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428835489834 0.468620217663 92% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 850.5 705.55239521 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.6224331152 57.8364921388 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.761904762 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.7619047619 23.324526521 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.47619047619 5.70786347227 166% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.255290420815 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.076175381342 0.0743258471296 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0656153730586 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.146950940885 0.128457276422 114% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0572630689119 0.0628817314937 91% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.82 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => 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
---------------------
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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 541 350
No. of Characters: 2663 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.823 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.922 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.755 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 191 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 139 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 104 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 85 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.762 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.424 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.346 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.532 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.084 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5