The marketing director of the cereal brand asserts that the company should expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible. However, this argument is unpersuasive as it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the arguer assumes that their cereal can be successful for a long time in the future. However, it is uncertain whether the past statistics for the success was long enough. It is possible that the cereal has been only one or two years since it came out in the market. It could have been that consumers wanted to try the new product in the market that its popularity is because it is new, not genuinely because it is tasty. If so, the high sales of the cereal could be a temporary symptom. Therefore, if the success of the cereal is only based on short-term data, it is unreasonable to assert that it will keep bringing the profits to the company in the future. Thus, the author should provide the years of its success since it was started to be sold in the cereal market to substantiate the argument.
Second, the arguer presumes that the other top-selling companies' strategy to lower its price did not affect the profits of the company. However, the profits could have decreased due to their strategies. The author only mentioned that the company still gain the profits from the cereal product. It is likely that the sales of the Bargain Brand Cereals had dropped and the profits had reduced significantly, just above the level that they need to increase the price. In that case, it is erroneous to assume that the cereal of Bargain Brand is secure in the long run. Thus, the arguer should provide the information related to the changes in the profits from the cereal after the price reduction of its rivals to support its argument.
Third, even if the Bargain Brand Cereal was successful in the market, it is unlikely that other products of the company will be successful as well. It is possible that the company could make a success at the cereal owing to its competitive recipe or manufacturing process. However, it is not guaranteed whether the Bargain Brand has the competitive recipe or technique for making other food products as well. If other products have much lower quality than their rivals in the market that even if the products are cheaper, it would not be as popular as cereals. Thus, the arguer should consider whether the company's other food products will be as competitive as their cereal product to substantiate its argument.
To sum up, the argument that the company should expand its cereal business and begin marketing its other low-priced food products is unpersuasive. The author should provide information related to the years of success for the cereal product, changes in the profits, and the competitiveness of other products in the market.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not exactly
--------------------
Need to focus on 'low prices'. Let's analyze the structure of the statement and argue accordingly:
condition 1:
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. //maybe other reasons cause the success too, not just low prices
condition 2:
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. //maybe still have to rise the price, for example, the cost is more, or raised prices are still lower than other companies'
conclusion:
Given our success selling cereal, Bargain Brand should now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible. //'low prices' policy may not apply to all business
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 2.5 out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 484 350
No. of Characters: 2308 1500
No. of Different Words: 173 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.69 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.769 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.551 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.023 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.682 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, second, so, still, therefore, third, thus, well, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2366.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 484.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 4.88842975207 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61664886983 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.365702479339 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 729.0 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 35.2299412479 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.545454545 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.54545454545 5.70786347227 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.240205280435 0.218282227539 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0871161415944 0.0743258471296 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0564948625724 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.162208031443 0.128457276422 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.031561274273 0.0628817314937 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.