"DKLA was the innovator in the market for casual women's business apparel. Smith & Co. was once the leader in that market with $2 billion in sales until styles changed and Smith & Co.'s clothes went out of fashion. DKLA can also be expected to fail, especially because the market for casual women's business apparel is saturated."
Describe how well the reasoning is in this. In the discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the arguments's conclusion. You may also address possible changes in the argument that would make it more logically sound and would help you to better evaluate its conclusion.
The argument attempts to conclude that DKLA is probably going out of market because of market saturation and also exemplified the present condition, that once domineering Smith & Co. is out of market because of being slow to market change. However, the argument does not provide necessary information to conclude in that way and it also lacks logical flow and some questions seriously undermine the whole argument.
According to the argument DKLA was the innovator of the casual women's business apparel and that means they do possess the ability to innovate, to bring out new idea, to cope with the changes and introduce new trends. That is why, comparing DKLA with Smith & Co., who can not keep pace with the new fashion is not a logical one. So, the authors claim can be more substantiated by providing information regarding the comparison and more detailing about Smith & Co.
Additoinally, DKLA was the market innovator and eventually they lost the market to Smith & Co. and it is a matter of question why that happened. Was there any major change in the DKLA administration? Did they fail to cope with the market trend? Did DKLA expanded their business in other sectors? There are no information highlighting those questions and that is why it should be investigated that why DKLA once lost market to Smith & Co.
Furthermore, the claim that the present market for casual woman's apparel is saturated and that is why DKLA is expected to fail does not sound logical. Though a eexisting product may not generate new demand, one can supplant others by introducing new concept, new design, fashion and eventually create new demand. Likewise, demand for old tech gadgets can be saturated if there are no innovation and that is why, the tech innovators are continuously working on creating new demand by introducing new product. So, by pushing new product to the market, new demands can be created and that is why the claim that market saturation will cause out of market situation, undermine the whole basis of the argument.
To conclude, the argument lacks information and logical flow. The author fails to provide concrete logical evidence to substantiate his claim. So, more factual and logical information is required to make the argument a cogent one.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 26, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e argument. According to the argument DKLA was the innovator of the casual wom...
^^
Line 3, column 464, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...son and more detailing about Smith & Co. Additoinally, DKLA was the market innova...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 438, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...why DKLA once lost market to Smith & Co. Furthermore, the claim that the present ...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 159, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
... to fail does not sound logical. Though a eexisting product may not generate new ...
^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rmine the whole basis of the argument. To conclude, the argument lacks informat...
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'likewise', 'may', 'regarding', 'so']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.24578313253 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.192771084337 0.15541462614 124% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0819277108434 0.0836205057962 98% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0481927710843 0.0520304965353 93% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0192771084337 0.0272364105082 71% => OK
Prepositions: 0.0795180722892 0.125424944231 63% => OK
Participles: 0.0506024096386 0.0416121511921 122% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.73762134656 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0385542168675 0.026700313972 144% => OK
Particles: 0.00240963855422 0.001811407834 133% => OK
Determiners: 0.10843373494 0.113004496875 96% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0192771084337 0.0255425247493 75% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0192771084337 0.0127820249294 151% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2268.0 2731.13054187 83% => OK
No of words: 380.0 446.07635468 85% => OK
Chars per words: 5.96842105263 6.12365571057 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41515443553 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.352631578947 0.378187486979 93% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.281578947368 0.287650121315 98% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.194736842105 0.208842608468 93% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.128947368421 0.135150697306 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73762134656 2.79052419416 98% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 207.018472906 82% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.444736842105 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 46.4546646032 52.1807786196 89% => OK
How many sentences: 16.0 20.039408867 80% => OK
Sentence length: 23.75 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.7973493592 57.7814097925 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.75 141.986410481 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.75 23.2022227129 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 51.9078947368 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.44444444444 1.8405768891 78% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.41823174449 0.441005458295 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.146493239887 0.135418324435 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0806797132355 0.0829849096947 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.595675602376 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.147764204763 0.147661913831 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.180741557312 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0896021503031 0.0970749176394 92% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.347026349914 0.42659136922 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0711792212908 0.0774707102158 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.287156223805 0.312017818177 92% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102169405471 0.0698173142475 146% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.33743842365 36% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.87684729064 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 2.0 6.46551724138 31% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 5.36822660099 149% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 10.0 14.657635468 68% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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: 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.