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."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In an increasingly competitive market, corporations are constantly challenged to create business strategies to increase profits as well as efficiency. The presented memo recommends, based on a customer survey, that the corporation discontinue the Endure manufacturing process to increase profits. While the vice president’s effort to review the current business practice in an attempt to increase profits is commended, the argument cannot be fully substantiated as it rests upon a few unwarranted assumptions. Had he or she reviewed this business proposal in consideration of the points discussed below, the vice president could make a more convincing case to ensure the projected success of the company.
The primary shortcoming of this business proposal is its reliance on the customer survey as the basis of the suggested change. While the survey results demonstrate that the average customer purchases new Dura-Socks every three months, implying that the company’s touted two-year durability is no longer appealing, we do not know whether the survey conducted is fully representative of Dura-Sock’s client base. Without more specific information on the methodology, for instance, there remains the possibility that only one percentage of the company’s clients purchase new socks every three months. If this were to be the case, the company could potentially lose the majority of its client base that may like the socks precisely because of their durability. Therefore, it is recommended that the vice president provides more information to prove that this survey is an accurate reflection of the company’s solid client base.
Another point in the memo that requires a careful analysis is the finding that northeastern US cities most value stylish appearance and availability in many colors. The implication here is that the preference identified in this largest market can be applied to other markets, which cannot be fully supported without evidence. To illustrate, demographics in other areas may appreciate Dura-Socks for their durability as they are more cost-effective than other competitors’ products. As market preferences are shaped by a number of area-specific factors, such as average income, weather condition, and competitors, it appears unwise to conclude without data that what is true in one area can be generalized to other areas. Even though northeastern US cities may be its biggest market, the vice president may benefit from further examining and demonstrating whether this finding can be extrapolated to other cities.
Finally, building on the points above whose validity is already questionable, the vice president proceeds to conclude that the discontinuation of the Endure manufacturing process will result into increased profits. This recommendation is far-fetched as it overlooks potential losses associated with this process. For example, the new market segment (i.e. one in which the average customer prefers stylishness and variety in colors) may be very competitive, where the manufacturers make only 1% of profit margins on average. In addition to this potential loss in profitability, the discontinuation may accompany costly reconstruction of its plant. Without a rigorous cost-benefit analysis ruling out these concerns, the recommendation remains very unconvincing, possibly leading to a significant profit loss despite the identification of this potential new market to tap into. It would be advisable, then, for the vice president to include this relevant information in the memo.
In summary, while the business strategy is not entirely invalid, it requires further information and clarity as discussed above. If the vice president provided relevant information, including the survey’s methodology, market preferences in other areas, and a cost-benefit analysis in the case of the discontinuation of the Endure manufacturing process, the recommendation would be further strengthened and instrumental in the assessment of whether it results into the projected increase in the company’s profits.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 244, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...urvey, that the corporation discontinue the Endure manufacturing process to increase profi...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 147, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...to conclude that the discontinuation of the Endure manufacturing process will result into ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 262, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
..., market preferences in other areas, and a cost-benefit analysis in the case of t...
^^
Line 9, column 326, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...s in the case of the discontinuation of the Endure manufacturing process, the recommendati...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'well', 'while', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in addition', 'in summary', 'such as', 'as well as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.278097982709 0.25644967241 108% => OK
Verbs: 0.123919308357 0.15541462614 80% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0922190201729 0.0836205057962 110% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0446685878963 0.0520304965353 86% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0244956772334 0.0272364105082 90% => OK
Prepositions: 0.125360230548 0.125424944231 100% => OK
Participles: 0.0317002881844 0.0416121511921 76% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.41758911436 2.79052419416 122% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0259365994236 0.026700313972 97% => OK
Particles: 0.0014409221902 0.001811407834 80% => OK
Determiners: 0.115273775216 0.113004496875 102% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0230547550432 0.0255425247493 90% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0115273775216 0.0127820249294 90% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4082.0 2731.13054187 149% => OK
No of words: 604.0 446.07635468 135% => OK
Chars per words: 6.7582781457 6.12365571057 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.95746018188 4.57801047555 108% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.456953642384 0.378187486979 121% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.385761589404 0.287650121315 134% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.291390728477 0.208842608468 140% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.19701986755 0.135150697306 146% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.41758911436 2.79052419416 122% => OK
Unique words: 296.0 207.018472906 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.490066225166 0.469332199767 104% => OK
Word variations: 60.6397180037 52.1807786196 116% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 26.2608695652 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.854507184 57.7814097925 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 177.47826087 141.986410481 125% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.2608695652 23.2022227129 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.652173913043 0.724660767414 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 64.8370285056 51.9672348444 125% => OK
Elegance: 2.25373134328 1.8405768891 122% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.413366022446 0.441005458295 94% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.135766299391 0.135418324435 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0693175693487 0.0829849096947 84% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.573287488392 0.58762219726 98% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.141833931838 0.147661913831 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.18060712337 0.193483328276 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0947006317084 0.0970749176394 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.439651935054 0.42659136922 103% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0912782409993 0.0774707102158 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.304091646646 0.312017818177 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.066683012616 0.0698173142475 96% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.82512315271 83% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 5.36822660099 75% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 19.0 14.657635468 130% => 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: 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.