The following appeared in a memorandum written by the assistant manager of a store that sells gourmet food items from various countries:
“A local wine store made an interesting discovery last month: it sold more French than Italian wine on days when it played recordings of French accordion music, but it sold more Italian than French wine on days when Italian songs were played. Therefore, I recommend that we put food specialties from one particular country on sale for a week at a time and play only music from that country while the sale is going on. By this means we will increase our profits in the same way that the wine store did, and we will be able to predict more precisely what items we should stock at any given time.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author of the argument claims that the profit of the food store can be increased if the store put one specialties from one particular country on sale and the store will play music of that country. To support his argument, the author presents the evidence of last month finding that a local wine store sold more French wine when French music was played than Italian wine, and the case is exactly opposite when Italian music was played. Though the underlying argument has merits, because of weak assumption, lack of evidence and vague language the author's argument is unsubstantiated and deeply flawed. Some the flaws are as followed.
To begin with, the author claims sales of the food store can be increased if the store play music of particular nation on sale for a week, and it will increase its profit. The author cites the finding of local wine store, as the store sales more wind of particular country when music of that country was played. However, author does not provide any evidence that the same method will also be applicable to their store.
Secondly, author assumes that what applies to local wine store will also be applicable to the gourmet food sale store. The author fails to provide any evidence how these two genre are linked together. Usually in wine store people prefer to listen to music. But, this is not necessarily be the same for the food store. People my visit the food store for some relax time without any noise or music.
The argument, as written, is unconvincing because of weak reasoning; however had the author present the data sales of a store mainly driven by music and not by any other factors, the argument could have been strengthened. If the author can show some statistical data that both the food store and wind store share the same sort of customer, the argument will be more effective to convince. Otherwise, the argument remains less persuasive.
The author present an interesting argument, but deeply flawed. The argument can be made stronger, had the author present the data as mentioned above. Otherwise the argument has no legs to stand.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 360 350
No. of Characters: 1691 1500
No. of Different Words: 158 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.356 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.697 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.292 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 110 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 75 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 48 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 22 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.155 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.389 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.587 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.135 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 103, Rule ID: ONE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use the numeral 'one' with plural words. Did you mean 'one specialty', 'a specialty', or simply 'specialties'?
Suggestion: one specialty; a specialty; specialties
...store can be increased if the store put one specialties from one particular country on sale and...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 551, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lack of evidence and vague language the authors argument is unsubstantiated and deeply ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 151, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...or present the data as mentioned above. Otherwise the argument has no legs to stand.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, sort of, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1750.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 360.0 441.139720559 82% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86111111111 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.35587717469 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.39373539386 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.45 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 555.3 705.55239521 79% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.0845014325 57.8364921388 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.2222222222 119.503703932 81% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.11111111111 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.253278013871 0.218282227539 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0894014630499 0.0743258471296 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0885521831505 0.0701772020484 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154481388653 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0764833356339 0.0628817314937 122% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.5 14.3799401198 80% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 59.64 48.3550499002 123% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.91 12.5979740519 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.35 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 62.0 98.500998004 63% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.