The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock, Inc.
"A recent study of our customers suggests that our company is wasting the money it spends on its patented Endure manufacturing process, which ensures that our socks are strong enough to last for two years. We have always advertised our use of the Endure process, but the new study shows that despite our socks' durability, our average customer actually purchases new Dura-Socks every three months. Furthermore, our customers surveyed in our largest market, northeastern United States cities, say that they most value Dura-Socks' stylish appearance and availability in many colors. These findings suggest that we can increase our profits by discontinuing use of the Endure manufacturing process."
In a memo, the vice president of marketing at Dura-Sock concludes that they can increase their margins by stopping their endure manufacturing process which is used in making their socks. His assertion is based on the frequency at which their customers buy their socks and also from the responses of a survey. However, his argument relies on several unfounded assumptions, that if not substantiated, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument. The author needs to provide evidences for the following three points.
First of all, the author needs to provide evidence regarding the inference they have drawn from buying trends of their customers. It is possible that many of their existing customers are buying Dura-Socks every three months not because they have discarded their old socks, but maybe because they are using the new ones along with their old socks. Perhaps they like the quality of the product so much that they are using these socks for a variety of occasions, thus making them buy more frequently. Further it is also possible that many of their customers buy single pair of socks at a time instead of buying in bulk at once, as the socks may be easily available round the year. If either of these scenarios is true, then the author's assertion that people don't wear socks for more than three months may not hold.
Second of all, the author needs to provide evidence concerning the survey, that if it is representative of their vast majority of customers. It is possible that even though the survey was conducted in their largest market, it only had responses from few people, and this may not be interpolated to large number of their customers. Perhaps the vast majority of people it surveyed consisted of youngsters from colleges, who are not bothered with the quality of socks as long as it stayed cheap. But if their large customer base consists of working professionals, then their preferences may not be same as those surveyed, and they may instead prefer socks that are more durable. Thus the survey may be incomplete in capturing people's choices regarding socks, and the author's argument that their customers don't care about durability may be misleading.
Third of all, the author needs to give evidence regarding priorities of its customers. It is possible that style and colors may not be the sole reason of why people purchase their socks. Perhaps the reason for buying their products is the combination of both factors, durability and their look. Maybe many other companies also produce socks which too are stylistic, but perhaps the main reason why their customers are loyal to them and are reluctant to shift to other alternatives is maybe because of the durability that Dura Socks provide. If this scenario is true, then they may lose many of their existing customers, and thus the author's argument that compromising on their quality may increase their profit margins may not hold water.
In conclusion, the author needs to provide evidences regarding the above three points that are raised, so as to further evaluate the validity of his argument that their profit margins will increase by discontinuing endure manufacturing process.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 529 350
No. of Characters: 2602 1500
No. of Different Words: 219 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.796 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.919 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.584 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 132 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 98 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.45 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.997 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.85 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.351 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.116 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 556, Rule ID: BUY_VBG[1]
Message: Did you mean 'by'?
Suggestion: by
...o possible that many of their customers buy single pair of socks at a time instead ...
^^^
Line 3, column 726, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...er of these scenarios is true, then the authors assertion that people dont wear socks f...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 756, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... then the authors assertion that people dont wear socks for more than three months m...
^^^^
Line 5, column 677, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...ead prefer socks that are more durable. Thus the survey may be incomplete in capturi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 765, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eoples choices regarding socks, and the authors argument that their customers dont care...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 803, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...e authors argument that their customers dont care about durability may be misleading...
^^^^
Line 7, column 634, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... their existing customers, and thus the authors argument that compromising on their qua...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 104, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...the above three points that are raised, so as to further evaluate the validity of his ar...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, regarding, second, so, then, third, thus, as to, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 66.0 28.8173652695 229% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2658.0 2260.96107784 118% => OK
No of words: 527.0 441.139720559 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.04364326376 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64141120815 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 220.0 204.123752495 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.417457305503 0.468620217663 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.67365269461 418% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.6250721784 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.9 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.35 23.324526521 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.9 5.70786347227 103% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.130622432143 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0514477200114 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0568090231464 0.0701772020484 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0940914765077 0.128457276422 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562769681281 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.