In the memorandum from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants it is concluded to apply cost-saving changes like using margarine instead of butter across the southeast and northeast branches of the restaurants to increase profitability. The author has come to this conclusion based on feedback and complains received from the customers. While the conclusion drawn might ultimately prove valid, the author must provide answer to three questions to strengthen the validity of the argument.
First of all, is the feedback mechanism reliable? In other words, are the means feedback is taken in the restaurant functional? It is possible that the feedback contains a long list of questions because of which only few people show willingness to fill it and hence only 2 percent of the customers have complained. Perhaps people are having complains regarding the substitute of butter but due to complex procedure to give feedback they tend to overlook it. If the above case is true it weakens the persuasiveness of the argument.
Secondly, are the customers made aware about the usage of margarine in the Pancakes? There is a possibility that certain customers can be allergic to margarine and file charges against the Pancake House for not providing them with the contents of the pancakes. In such cases the Pancake house will need to keep stocks of butter for exceptional cases and hence replacing butter completely with margarine will not be a feasible solution to increase profits. If the above scenario holds merit, then the conclusion drawn does not hold water.
Lastly, are all the customers not able to distinguish the difference between butter and margarine? Perhaps the customers who didn't noticed any difference were new to the restaurant and hence they did not focus much on how the butter tasted. Maybe a regular customer of Happy pancake may notice the difference between the taste of pancakes made in butter to the pancakes made in margarine and it may happen that he or she may not like the pancakes made with margarine. If the above situation is true, then the conclusion drawn is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is rife with flaws. Although the author might have not evaluated the given situation regarding the usage of margarine in the Happy Pancake House restaurants in its entirety the conclusion and information associated with it cannot be written off either. There is no smoke without fire and the author must have had compelling reasons to make such a strong conclusion, however, since the reasons have not been listed the argument as it stands cannot be said holistic. More evidence is needed (perhaps in the form of a detailed survey across all the branches of the Pancake house) to make the given argument stronger.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 461 350
No. of Characters: 2293 1500
No. of Different Words: 218 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.634 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.974 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.694 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 164 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 133 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.102 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.306 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.306 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 459, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...give feedback they tend to overlook it. If the above case is true it weakens the p...
^^
Line 4, column 126, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
...nd margarine? Perhaps the customers who didnt noticed any difference were new to the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, look, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, while, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 13.6137724551 37% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2339.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0847826087 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75596191682 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478260869565 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.4908733065 57.8364921388 106% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.95 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.324526521 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295888029944 0.218282227539 136% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0771008164282 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0613259562605 0.0701772020484 87% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.152252323554 0.128457276422 119% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0188369057546 0.0628817314937 30% => 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: 14.0 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.