The following appeared in a memo from the owner of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States.
"For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses. Last year, however, all of the five best-selling cheeses at our newest store were domestic cheddar cheeses from Wisconsin. Furthermore, a recent survey by Cheeses of the World magazine indicates an increasing preference for domestic cheeses among its subscribers. Since our company can reduce expenses by limiting inventory, the best way to improve profits in all of our stores is to discontinue stocking many of our varieties of imported cheese and concentrate primarily on domestic cheeses."
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 argument put forth in the memo claims that the cheese store chain must discontinue stocking a number of varieties of imported cheese in order to improve profits wing primarily to a supposed increased demand for domestic cheese. The argument stated in this way reveals examples of faith and tends to provide a distorted view of the situation. There is a dearth of actual facts and figures from the survey mentioned in the memo highlighting the increased demand of domestic cheese. The conclusions drawn from the argument are based on assumptions which are not substantiated by actual evidence leading to an unconvincing claim.
First, the argument is tends to base the future actions of the company on satistics from the last year. There is no reason to believe that the five best-selling cheese the previous year would continue to do sales of the same magnitude in the coming year. To illustrate this , consider the example of a sharp drop in the demand of Xbox 360, a generation defining gaming console as soon as the Playstation 4 was announced. Thus, the author simply ignores the role that external factors may play on the demand and hence sale of the domestic cheese. The argument would have been strengthened had the author provided accurate projections of the demand of cheese from previous year to the next year.
Second, the author tends to base his entire case on a survey. There are no explicit details stating either the number nor the pattern preference of the subscribers taht participated in the survey. There is no consideration given to the possibility that the subscribers may have predisposition towards domestic cheese leading to biased results of the survey.Consider the example of the poll surveys conducted to predict the Delhi Chief Minister. The veteran Kiran Bedi was heavily favored and won most poll surveys indicating a victory by huge margin. The results, however, were entirely the opposite wherein she suffered a massive defeat at the hands of a new political contender in Arvind Kejriwal. Thus authenticity of a survey plays a huge role in determining the outcome and even then it is not safe to base one's decision on them.
Finally, the argument must answer two important questions in order to be taken seriously and invoke adherence. The first being whether the results of a localised survey can be trusted enough to implement the proposed strategy in all the stores making up the chain throughout United States? The second being is there a guranteed consequence of reduction in expenses without a significant decline in demand by limiting inventory. Without, convincing answers to the above questions, the argument is open to debate and lacks depth. There may be proponents in favor of the move but the argument does not provide enought evidence to do them adequate justice.
In conclusion, the argument is wanting as demonstrated by the above mentioned reasons. It would have been much coherent and clear had the author provided sufficient proof to back his claims. In order to evaluate an argument in totality, there must be a meticulous analysis of alll the contributing factors that shape the conclusion. In this particular case, however, the author glosses over important notions that are required to discern whether the argument is borne out of solid proof or mere wishful thinking.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 368, Rule ID: ACTUAL_EXPERIENCE[1]
Message: Use simply 'facts'.
Suggestion: facts
... of the situation. There is a dearth of actual facts and figures from the survey mentioned i...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 596, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...are not substantiated by actual evidence leading to an unconvincing claim. Fir...
^^
Line 3, column 274, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...e in the coming year. To illustrate this , consider the example of a sharp drop in...
^^
Line 5, column 358, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Consider
...leading to biased results of the survey.Consider the example of the poll surveys conduct...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 701, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...political contender in Arvind Kejriwal. Thus authenticity of a survey plays a huge r...
^^^^
Line 10, column 29, Rule ID: PROGRESSIVE_VERBS[1]
Message: This verb is normally not used in the progressive form. Try a simple form instead.
...stice. In conclusion, the argument is wanting as demonstrated by the above mentioned ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'finally', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'thus', 'in conclusion']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.259762308998 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.174872665535 0.15541462614 113% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0899830220713 0.0836205057962 108% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0339558573854 0.0520304965353 65% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0118845500849 0.0272364105082 44% => OK
Prepositions: 0.11544991511 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0611205432937 0.0416121511921 147% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.7906072532 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0373514431239 0.026700313972 140% => OK
Particles: 0.00339558573854 0.001811407834 187% => OK
Determiners: 0.147707979626 0.113004496875 131% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0169779286927 0.0255425247493 66% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00509337860781 0.0127820249294 40% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3339.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 552.0 446.07635468 124% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04891304348 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84713113593 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.391304347826 0.378187486979 103% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.30615942029 0.287650121315 106% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.208333333333 0.208842608468 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.115942028986 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7906072532 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 285.0 207.018472906 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.516304347826 0.469332199767 110% => OK
Word variations: 63.4029384646 52.1807786196 122% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.039408867 120% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.0598310058 57.7814097925 71% => OK
Chars per sentence: 139.125 141.986410481 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0 23.2022227129 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.5 0.724660767414 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 3.58251231527 167% => OK
Readability: 53.615942029 51.9672348444 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.97692307692 1.8405768891 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.569107716832 0.441005458295 129% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.100936214521 0.135418324435 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0585699443538 0.0829849096947 71% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.613911693439 0.58762219726 104% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122717716427 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.264355563523 0.193483328276 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.114158399016 0.0970749176394 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.595901750231 0.42659136922 140% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0548965677578 0.0774707102158 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.430020937482 0.312017818177 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0651383490153 0.0698173142475 93% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 16.0 6.87684729064 233% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 14.0 5.36822660099 261% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.