The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing.
"Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulties in obtaining reliable supplies of high quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of our alpaca overcoat. Now that we have a new fabric supplier, we should resume production. This coat should sell very well: since we have not offered an alpaca overcoat for five years and since our major competitor no longer makes an alpaca overcoat, there will be pent-up customer demand. Also, since the price of most types of clothing has increased in each of the past five years, customers should be willing to pay significantly higher prices for alpaca overcoats than they did five years ago, and our company profits will increase."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The vice president of the Sartorian company argues that the company will resume production and increase profits better than five years ago. While the argument may have some merit, it is rifed with unaddressed assumptions. Particular evidence is needed to evaluate the validity of the argument. If the author fails to provide substantial evidence, then the argument is unwarranted and completely falls apart.
Firstly, the author assumes that production will resume due to a new fabric supplier. The premise behind this assumption is due to the scarce availability of resources five years ago. While having a new fabric supplier will resume production, the author must provide evidence that the new fabric supply provides quality wool. If the wool is not of high quality, then customers may not be interested in buying from the company. Additionally, evidence is needed to show that enough employees are on field to produce alpaca overcoats. While the company may have the quality fabric, because they have been shut down for five years, they must prove that essential workers are in line to produce the material. If not, then the argument fails. To strengthen the argument, the author needs to show that the fabric is high quality and employees are able to produce the coats.
Additionally, the author implies that customers are demanding alpaca overcoats since the competing company does not produce alpaca overcoats. However, evidence is needed to show that customers are interested in alpaca overcoats. Perhaps, the company no longer sells alpaca overcoats due to the customer demand of other styles. Within the five year gap that the Sartorian company was not in production, the fashion of society may have changed. If that were to be the case, then selling alpaca overcoats would actually waste the company’s profits. The author must provide a survey on customers that asks whether or not they are interested in alpaca overcoat. If not, then the argument falls apart.
Lastly, the author assumes that customers are willing to pay more for alpaca overcoats due to increased prices in most clothing items over the years. While increased prices require that customers pay more, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are willing to pay. Perhaps, customers are paying more for clothes that they do like or need, such as baby clothing, lingerie, or fitness attire. If customers are paying more for clothes that they need or are interested in, then it would indicate they are willing to pay more. However, if customers are not interested in alpaca overcoats, then they would not spend more. The author needs to provide a census on expenditures that customers over the years have been paying more for clothing related to alpaca wool. If not, then the argument is unsubstantiated.
In conclusion, the argument has a number of unaddressed assumptions. The author must provide evidence to support the argument, such as surveys and data, to prove that production will resume and increase profits. If customers are not interested in alpaca wool or not willing to pay more for the item at increased prices, then tha company will lose profit and will be at a worse state than five years ago.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 524 350
No. of Characters: 2590 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.784 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.943 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.517 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 198 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 142 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 91 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 60 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.069 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.726 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.69 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.49 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.109 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 603, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...provide a survey on customers that asks whether or not they are interested in alpaca overcoat....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, so, then, while, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2666.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 523.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09751434034 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78217453174 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61854387828 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.38240917782 0.468620217663 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 848.7 705.55239521 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 14.0 2.70958083832 517% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 36.7325714778 57.8364921388 64% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.9310344828 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.0344827586 23.324526521 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.13793103448 5.70786347227 55% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.139108439491 0.218282227539 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0437127013875 0.0743258471296 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0569123590031 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0973296201108 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.052454269315 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.0 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.43 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 96.0 98.500998004 97% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 12.3882235529 57% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.