In the argument, the author states that Techcorporation is the best investment this term. He states that the companies satellite techonology is FTA approved and ready to enter the market. Based on a consumer survey he consequently states thatTelecoporation is going to have a very profitable term ahead when it enters the competitive market of satellite television. At first glance the authors argument seems cogent and plausible, but after thorough scrutiny we notice that, the author fails to proved any supporting evidence or an analogy to a similar successfull observation. The argument is rife with fallacies. There are several serious questions that need to be answered before accepting the author's recommendation.
Firstly, the author suggests that the companies satellite technology is approved by FTA to compete with the current satellite providers. But he fails to provide any facts or figures about the companies available capital to participate in the race among other satellite providers. Author also falls short of citing any historical success stories of the company that would strengthen his view that if the company were to step into the competitive market, it would definitely be a successful venture.
Secondly, the author solely places his faith in companies success based on a survey that was conducted an year ago. The market and other satellite vendor might have upped their game since and might have been providing better services now. Other comapnies have aligned more to their viewers choice in the manwhile. Entering the market at such a juncture based on old surveys might seriously hamper the companies chances of making it large in the market. Thus, a more recent survey needs to be taken into consideration before citing the companies success in the market.
Thirdly, the survey which author builds his argument on is not detailed. There are several questions that need answering before the authors argument becomes formidable, such as, what was the age group of the survey participatnts? What kind fo questions were asked? How many of the participants were regular satellite television viewers? What were the criterion for rating a particular satellite television provider? Without answering these question jumping into conclusions would only cause the strength of the argument to circumvent downwards.
To conclude, I suggest the authors answer the above stated questions in his analogy before concluding and suggesting that investing in Telecorporation will be a profitable venture. The authos needs to work on strengthening his argument.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 387, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...tellite television. At first glance the authors argument seems cogent and plausible, bu...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 698, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...eed to be answered before accepting the authors recommendation. Firstly, the author ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 104, 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
...ss based on a survey that was conducted an year ago. The market and other satellit...
^^
Line 5, column 536, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'companies'' or 'company's'?
Suggestion: companies'; company's
...en into consideration before citing the companies success in the market. Thirdly, the ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 133, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...uestions that need answering before the authors argument becomes formidable, such as, w...
^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'consequently', 'first', 'firstly', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'thus', 'while', 'such as']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.248275862069 0.25644967241 97% => OK
Verbs: 0.197701149425 0.15541462614 127% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0781609195402 0.0836205057962 93% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0413793103448 0.0520304965353 80% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0344827586207 0.0272364105082 127% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.105747126437 0.125424944231 84% => OK
Participles: 0.0620689655172 0.0416121511921 149% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.95222493025 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.032183908046 0.026700313972 121% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12183908046 0.113004496875 108% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.016091954023 0.0255425247493 63% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0206896551724 0.0127820249294 162% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2580.0 2731.13054187 94% => OK
No of words: 402.0 446.07635468 90% => OK
Chars per words: 6.41791044776 6.12365571057 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.47771567384 4.57801047555 98% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.427860696517 0.378187486979 113% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.323383084577 0.287650121315 112% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.238805970149 0.208842608468 114% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.181592039801 0.135150697306 134% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95222493025 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 207.018472906 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52736318408 0.469332199767 112% => OK
Word variations: 59.1428486014 52.1807786196 113% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 18.2727272727 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.2773506012 57.7814097925 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.272727273 141.986410481 83% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2727272727 23.2022227129 79% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 3.58251231527 140% => OK
Readability: 50.6110357304 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.52100840336 1.8405768891 83% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296000468179 0.441005458295 67% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.106177455846 0.135418324435 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0744144748338 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.542746255645 0.58762219726 92% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.125356254046 0.147661913831 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11730966592 0.193483328276 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0623842663825 0.0970749176394 64% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.381401015806 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.10118550158 0.0774707102158 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203101187283 0.312017818177 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0412552198349 0.0698173142475 59% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
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: 3.0 4.82512315271 62% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.