The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of movie-rental stores.
"Because of declining profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten movie-rental stores. Raising prices is not a good option, since we are famous for our low prices. Instead, we should reduce our operating hours. Last month our store in downtown Marston reduced its hours by closing at 6:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 p.m. and reduced its overall inventory by no longer stocking any DVD released more than five years ago. Since we have received very few customer complaints about these new policies, we should now adopt them at all other Movies Galore stores as our best strategies for improving profits."
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.
According to the presented memorandum, the owner of Movies Galore recommends that the chain reduce its operating hours across the board as a means to improve profits. At first sight, the argument appears logical; however, on closer inspection, it rests upon a few unwarranted assumptions that lack clarity and evidence. Had the owner reviewed and adjusted this recommendation in consideration of the following points, he or she could make a more compelling case for it.
One of the shortcomings of the argument involves the assertion that raising prices is not a good option. The owner makes this assumption without citing any evidence, rendering the argument suspect. As it stands, there remains the possibility that rising prices may be in fact a feasible and sound business strategy. For instance, had the owner conducted a customer survey asking about its current price level, preferably coupled with market research on the average market price, he or she could learn that increasing prices may not affect the profit level. Reducing operating hours, on the other hand, could turn out to be a risky move. Consequently, in order to address these potential concerns, the owner should provide specific evidence to support the assertion that raising prices is not an feasible option.
Moreover, another point of contention worth considering is the assumption that the cited case of the store in Marston is applicable to all other Movie Galore stores. While the inclusion of this type of specific case studies is recommended, there is no information to support this extrapolation as there are potentially many aspects that are only unique to Marston in relation to the implied success. For instance, the majority of clients in Marston may be working professionals who only work until 4 p.m., making it possible for them to go to the store even after this change in operating hours. On the other hand, if the operating hours are drastically reduced as suggested, the clients who work after the new closing time in other areas may become no longer go to the stores. It would be advisable for the owner, then, to provide specific evidence to demonstrate that Marston is similar to other stores in relevant and critical elements such as the demographics.
Lastly, the fact that Marston received “very few customer complaint” requires a careful examination. In citing this fact, the owner appears to assume that the small number of customer complaints means that the majority of customers were satisfied with the policy change. This assumption that the recommendation hinges upon cannot be fully supported for two reasons. First, it is unclear how many complaints constitutes “very few customer complaints” and whether they are fully representative of the client base. If the “very few customer complaints” were a group complaint representing the majority of the clients, for example, this dismissive attitude could jeopardize the store. Second, it is also possible that the majority of the customers were in fact dissatisfied with the policy change, yet never bothered to submit a complaint. In order for the argument to have more validity, therefore, the owner should clarify both the quantity and contents of the few complaints while proving that this result means that the majority of its customers were not at least dissatisfied with the new policies.
In summary, while the argument is not entirely invalid, it is rife with assumptions that could seriously undermine the validity of the business recommendation. It could be corroborated if the owner provided specific and relevant evidence to address the aforementioned points.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 793, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'a' instead of 'an' if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. 'a sentence', 'a university'
Suggestion: a
...he assertion that raising prices is not an feasible option. Moreover, another p...
^^
Line 7, column 51, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun customer seems to be countable; consider using: 'few customers'.
Suggestion: few customers
...e fact that Marston received 'very few customer complaint' requires a careful exam...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 441, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun customer seems to be countable; consider using: 'few customers'.
Suggestion: few customers
... many complaints constitutes 'very few customer complaints' and whether they are f...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 551, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun customer seems to be countable; consider using: 'few customers'.
Suggestion: few customers
...e of the client base. If the 'very few customer complaints' were a group complaint...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'consequently', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'may', 'moreover', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'while', 'at least', 'for example', 'for instance', 'in fact', 'in summary', 'such as', 'on the other hand']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.256449165402 0.25644967241 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.141122913505 0.15541462614 91% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0849772382398 0.0836205057962 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0470409711684 0.0520304965353 90% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0273141122914 0.0272364105082 100% => OK
Prepositions: 0.12746585736 0.125424944231 102% => OK
Participles: 0.0364188163885 0.0416121511921 88% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.96341058483 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0288315629742 0.026700313972 108% => OK
Particles: 0.00151745068285 0.001811407834 84% => OK
Determiners: 0.12746585736 0.113004496875 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0212443095599 0.0255425247493 83% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00910470409712 0.0127820249294 71% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3664.0 2731.13054187 134% => OK
No of words: 583.0 446.07635468 131% => OK
Chars per words: 6.28473413379 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.91379618374 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.399656946827 0.378187486979 106% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.322469982847 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.240137221269 0.208842608468 115% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.142367066895 0.135150697306 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96341058483 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 207.018472906 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473413379074 0.469332199767 101% => OK
Word variations: 57.3569987084 52.1807786196 110% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 25.347826087 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.8723077362 57.7814097925 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 159.304347826 141.986410481 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.347826087 23.2022227129 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.869565217391 0.724660767414 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 57.5948243717 51.9672348444 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.95070422535 1.8405768891 106% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.333502674774 0.441005458295 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.134944871796 0.135418324435 100% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0923841873628 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.598904145217 0.58762219726 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.123183332157 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.145261568737 0.193483328276 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771829833238 0.0970749176394 80% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.498682841797 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0136943802662 0.0774707102158 18% => Paragraphs are so close to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.230699629685 0.312017818177 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0291000615572 0.0698173142475 42% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.87684729064 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => 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.