"The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors: "Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satellite technology has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. That company is Techcorporation. A consumer survey last year indicated that over 80 percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite provider & would want to switch to another provider if the industry were not a monopoly. Thus, the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television will prove to be highly profitable for those who invest now."" -
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice & the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
The argument states that, investors should invest on Techcorporation, which is the new satellite provider approved by FTA. The claim is based on the premises that, a great percentage of the consumer survey respondents are dissatisfied with the current service provider and there is no other competitor in the market. However, in deeper analysis, it is apparent that, certain relevant aspects has not been taken into consideration, leading to a number of mistaken assumptions and logical flaws.
The first flaw of the argument is that, the newsletter cites from a survey, which was conducted to know the customer feedback about the present service provider, result shows that about 80% of the customers are dissatisfied. However, the survey does not reflect the actual scenario until it is specified, how much current customers were included in the survey. Unless a survey is fully reliable, it can not be used to back up the letter's claim that, people are actully dissatisfied with the present service. May there be situation like, only the people of the area, where the current service provider is having some techincal problems were surveyed and that is why most of the people express their dissatisfaction with the present provider. So, the author could benefit from providing more information regarding that concern.
Consequently, the survey just specified that, the people are dissatisfied with the present satellite provider, but did not specify the reason behind that dissatisfaction. If the new Techcorporation enters into the market with the same problem like the present provider, it will not bring any good to the customers and thus the customer will eventually will be fed up with the new provider too. So, the author of the letter should have provided more information regarding the reasons behind the dissatisfaction.
Lastly, the argument stats that, the new venture will be highly profitable as there are only competitor in the market and customers are not in good terms with them. However, the argument did not provide any information whether the present service provider is making profit as the sole distributor in the market. There is no indication of profitability in the argument from where we can assume that the satellite providing business will be profitable business in that reason. The author should clarify that issue too.
To conclude, the argument lacks information and seems to provide irrational assumptions and logical flaws. The conclusion by the newsletter seems tenuous due to lack of concrete information. The author of the argument should have provided more logical information and concrete evidence to substaintiate his viewpoints and make the argument more cogent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 94, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'competitors'?
Suggestion: competitors
... be highly profitable as there are only competitor in the market and customers are not in ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, lastly, may, regarding, so, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2279.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 430.0 441.139720559 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91545646942 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 195.0 204.123752495 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.453488372093 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 709.2 705.55239521 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 2.0 0.471057884232 425% => OK
Article: 17.0 8.76447105788 194% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.3393729514 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 126.611111111 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8888888889 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.94444444444 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0322983078061 0.218282227539 15% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0121050066536 0.0743258471296 16% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0193933818871 0.0701772020484 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0210024468142 0.128457276422 16% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0081150830536 0.0628817314937 13% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.76 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.32208582834 99% => OK
difficult_words: 95.0 98.500998004 96% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.