The author suggests that Bargain Brand Cereals should expand its business and promote other low-priced food products of the company considering its recent success of the low-priced cereals. However, the argument is unpersuasive as it is based on several questionable assumptions.
First, the author assumes that the success of the cereals is due to its low price. However, just because the low price coincides with the success of the cereal does not mean that the latter was caused by the former. Maybe there are other reasons for its popularity among consumers such as its quality or special recipe. Without evidence to preclude the other possibilities, the author's argument is feeble. The correlation was made into the causation relationship by the author. Therefore, the author should provide information regarding the reasons for the success of the cereal product.
Second, the author presumes that the cereal could sustain its success against the other low-priced cereals by the rival companies. However, the profitability may not necessarily because they sustained their sales but other factors like economies of scale. It is likely that after the launching of other low-priced cereals, the sales volume of Bargain Brand Cereals were diminished but the company could still earn profits due to its low cost of production. If consumers change from the Bargain Brand Cereal to other low-priced products, it must be hard to guarantee its success in the future. Therefore, the author should provide information related to the changed sales volume after the rival's new strategy.
Third, the author supposes that other products will be successful with the low-price strategy as cereals. However, the author did not mention any similarities between cereals and other products. If there is not similar characteristic, it can be best termed as hasty generalization. Thus, the author should provide the similar characteristics between cereals and other food products.
To sum up, the author's argument needs to solve the assumptions above to guarantee the credibility of the argument. If not, the suggestion must be ill-advised.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
flaws:
No. of Words: 332 350 //need to put more content. around 400 words will be ideal for argument essays.
---------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 332 350
No. of Characters: 1755 1500
No. of Different Words: 157 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.269 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.286 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.756 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 142 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 61 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.474 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.15 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.842 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.374 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.573 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.092 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 379, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...o preclude the other possibilities, the authors argument is feeble. The correlation was...
^^^^^^^
Line 8, column 17, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...other food products. To sum up, the authors argument needs to solve the assumptions...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, regarding, second, so, still, therefore, third, thus, such as, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1801.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 332.0 441.139720559 75% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42469879518 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.2685907696 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84881008488 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.487951807229 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 551.7 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 15.0 8.76447105788 171% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.4018050753 57.8364921388 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 94.7894736842 119.503703932 79% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4736842105 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.36842105263 5.70786347227 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.168725182883 0.218282227539 77% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0606521302839 0.0743258471296 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717975527488 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.103384577717 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0682999103079 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.86 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.62 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.