The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals.
"One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success in selling cereal, we recommend that Bargain Brand now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The given argument is based on a memo addressed to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals. The memo attributes the past success of the company largely to its low cereal prices. The memo uses this success as a premise to propound the idea that the company should diversify and start selling other low-priced food products in the market. At first glance, the argument put forth in the memo seems coherent and convincing. However, on scrutiny, it is found to be rife with unwarranted assumptions and flawed logic. Only after a careful analysis, can a decision be made about the future implications of this recommendation.
First and the most fundamentally flawed assumption made by the author is that the success of Bargain Brand's breakfast cereal due to low prices guarantees success of the company in other food products. This type of one-size-fits-all market planning faces great challenges in the long term which might thwart the ambitions of the company. Before venturing into a new market, in this case, sale of different food products, one must carefully evaluate the market for that product. It might be possible that target population for breakfast cereals differs vastly from the target population for any other food product. Such a scenario would render the company's previous experience with breakfast cereals moot going forward.
Secondly, the company must also keep in mind that the competition differs in each sector of the market. They might have gotten away with predatory pricing strategies in the case of breakfast cereals, but same cannot be said with certainty in case of other food products. Rival firms in other food markets might decide to go for other strategies to counter Bargain Brand's unique selling point (USP) of low prices. For example, companies in business of selling meat products might look to stress on their quality and freshness. Such a marketing stint would prove harmful to a company promoting their products as cheap alternatives, since it would create an impression of low quality in the minds of the consumer.
Thirdly, the assumption that one can continue to make profits without having to raise their prices seems credulous. Although this assumption might hold in case of a company with only one product in its market portfolio, the same cannot be said once a company diversifies.
Lastly, the author provides no concrete data to support his/her/their assumptions with any concrete data. The use of vague words like 'many', 'several' acts as a red flag in the given memo. There is no quantification provided in terms of how much market has the company actually managed to capture. No mention of any survey that strengthens the author's belief that customers actually prefer low-priced new products over their trusted products, even if slightly more expensive. Without reliable quantification, author's assumptions can be called naive at best.
Hence, the author’s recommendation is based entirely on some assumptions and the author has failed to support his assumptions with concrete evidence. The author should have analysed the market and understood the attitude of customers of different food products before making the suggestion of venturing into new market with the company's old strategy.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 526 350
No. of Characters: 2670 1500
No. of Different Words: 256 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.789 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.076 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.657 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 103 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.04 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.848 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.44 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.289 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.514 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.076 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 187, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...mpany largely to its low cereal prices. The memo uses this success as a premise to ...
^^^
Line 9, column 342, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tion of any survey that strengthens the authors belief that customers actually prefer l...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 556, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ssumptions can be called naive at best. Hence, the author’s recommendation is ba...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, look, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, for example
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 55.5748502994 148% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2734.0 2260.96107784 121% => OK
No of words: 523.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2275334608 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.78860339786 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 259.0 204.123752495 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495219885277 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 832.5 705.55239521 118% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.6736962958 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.36 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.92 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.68 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
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: 0.209282807656 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0636997953051 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0619980038916 0.0701772020484 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11320263889 0.128457276422 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0690533803228 0.0628817314937 110% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 98.500998004 132% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => 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.