The following appeared in a memo from the marketing director 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 selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.
The author o the argument claims that due to the remarkable gravitations of costumers from other companies toward the author's company because of the inexpensive breakfast cereals, the company should plan to reduce the other foods as soon as possible. Although the argument may seem thoroughly correct in first look, it is flawed for numerous reasons and the argument is rife with several assumption and holes, and thus not strong enough to encourage the company to move toward the cheap foods.
The author bases the claim partly to the fact that the people found out a convincing tendency toward the company's cereals because of its low price in compared to other companies. Nevertheless, the author fails to provide any justification that during the one year, the taste and desires of people may greatly be changed and not have had a tendency to the cereals, or perhaps in current year the economic situations of them improve. Moreover, the study may not be true if the sample size of population is low, because we cannot generalize the desire of minority of people to the majorities. Therefore, the argument can be stronger if it gives clear assumptions about the population size and the situations of people in different fields.
In further support of the argument, the author points out that the company should mitigate the price of other products in order to attract many costumers. However, the author also leaves many other unanswered questions, Even if the reducing of cereals was a precise and correct plan, it would possibly not correct path in applying the same policy for other products, because the initial material of other foods have had a heavy prices and the selling of those foods cannot guarantee the whole profits of the company. In addition, other companies would mitigate their whole prices due to the other factors which has not relation to the competition.
On the other hand, even though the author claims that the other companies reduces their cereals price in competition market, it can be due to the other parameters such as low gravitation of those companies to the cereals and enhancing the cost of other food products, or perhaps they have achieved to a better statues from economic point of view. Thus, the author must pay a thorough attention to the reasons of the price mitigating of other companies to encourage the company to the reduce its prices.
To sum up, because the argument is lack of any informative and warranted assumptions, the author sharply fails to make a convincing mood in administrations of the company to cheap the other products.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 381, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun assumption seems to be countable; consider using: 'several assumptions'.
Suggestion: several assumptions
...s reasons and the argument is rife with several assumption and holes, and thus not strong enough t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 481, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...r companies to encourage the company to the reduce its prices. To sum up, because the a...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'nevertheless', 'so', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in addition', 'such as', 'to sum up', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.247334754797 0.25644967241 96% => OK
Verbs: 0.110874200426 0.15541462614 71% => OK
Adjectives: 0.113006396588 0.0836205057962 135% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0554371002132 0.0520304965353 107% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0234541577825 0.0272364105082 86% => OK
Prepositions: 0.127931769723 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0170575692964 0.0416121511921 41% => Some participles wanted.
Conjunctions: 2.65608643969 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.044776119403 0.026700313972 168% => OK
Particles: 0.00639658848614 0.001811407834 353% => OK
Determiners: 0.142857142857 0.113004496875 126% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0255863539446 0.0255425247493 100% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00213219616205 0.0127820249294 17% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2594.0 2731.13054187 95% => OK
No of words: 434.0 446.07635468 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.97695852535 6.12365571057 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56428161445 4.57801047555 100% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.373271889401 0.378187486979 99% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.283410138249 0.287650121315 99% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.184331797235 0.208842608468 88% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.115207373272 0.135150697306 85% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.65608643969 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 207.018472906 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460829493088 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 50.5820433701 52.1807786196 97% => OK
How many sentences: 12.0 20.039408867 60% => OK
Sentence length: 36.1666666667 23.2022227129 156% => OK
Sentence length SD: 74.2564531427 57.7814097925 129% => OK
Chars per sentence: 216.166666667 141.986410481 152% => OK
Words per sentence: 36.1666666667 23.2022227129 156% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.25 0.724660767414 172% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 64.5076804916 51.9672348444 124% => OK
Elegance: 2.06741573034 1.8405768891 112% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254258763605 0.441005458295 58% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.254160416926 0.135418324435 188% => Sentence is so close to another sentence.
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0515545684828 0.0829849096947 62% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.800124358286 0.58762219726 136% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.101716650757 0.147661913831 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.169764475453 0.193483328276 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0341067979084 0.0970749176394 35% => The sentences are too close to each other.
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.620354644132 0.42659136922 145% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0509633151321 0.0774707102158 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.201161881262 0.312017818177 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0314801705979 0.0698173142475 45% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.87684729064 44% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => 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: This is not the final score. 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.