As per the vice president of Sartorian, he wants to relaunch the old alpaco coat because he found a new wool fabric supplier in the hope to increase a profit. With this evidence, the argument seems cogent. However, there are several holes and unwarranted assumptions regarding the argument. The Vice President must release answers to the question regarding the quality, price, transportation cost, and others misselanious regarding the fabric supplier to make the argument flawless.
Firstly, the president must research a survey in the market regarding the new trend in clothing. The old coat might not be feasible in the market to attract customer interest. Also, he must have a knowledge of inflation in the price. Without proper calculation, it is difficult to assume the profit. The Vice President has not included the sartorial design of the coat which might be vaccilating to invest.
Secondly, the president of Sartorian, has not included the cost of new fabric. Also, he has not disclosed the material and transportation cost of the fabric. Whether the new wool fabric is good or not. What if the cost of the material is higher than 5 years ago? The vice president has not considered this hypothesis and released a conclusion. What if the material quality and transportation quality are not feasible in the market. There might be several other options to earn profit rather than going back to the old alpaco coat. If this hypothesis is true, then the argument continues to have further deteriorated.
Lastly, the President and the research team must look back and collect proper evidence regarding the competitor and the reason behind its shutdown. Why the competitor has shut down this coat? He might be facing some difficulties in preparing or selling these coat. He might not be generating higher profit. If any of this evidence holds merit, the conclusion of the argument is strongly weakened. Also, the customers who used to love wearing this alpaco coat might have shifted to other brands.
The argument contains several flaws regarding quality, price, and other factors. Overall, while the argument might be true in some aspects, Some particular proof must be generated to better evaluate the argument. In that case, the argument seems to be more reasonable, logical, and, convincing.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1871 1500
No. of Different Words: 167 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.976 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.666 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 107 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 14.462 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.583 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.538 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.299 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.299 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, look, regarding, second, secondly, so, then, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 16.0 28.8173652695 56% => OK
Preposition: 42.0 55.5748502994 76% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1929.0 2260.96107784 85% => OK
No of words: 376.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13031914894 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40348946061 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76111354701 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 173.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.460106382979 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 592.2 705.55239521 84% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 35.3302466926 57.8364921388 61% => OK
Chars per sentence: 74.1923076923 119.503703932 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.4615384615 23.324526521 62% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.57692307692 5.70786347227 63% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.101791421272 0.218282227539 47% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0343450676147 0.0743258471296 46% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0464732695315 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0629773694436 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0530559137526 0.0628817314937 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.0 14.3799401198 70% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 48.3550499002 118% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 12.197005988 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.88 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.98 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
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.