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 eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider and 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 and 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.
This newsletter offers advice to investors in a difficult situation. In this case, the investors must decide on investing in a monopolized market. However, they are unwilling to switch exactly because the current provider monopolized the market. At the same time, if the clients are to invest in an alternative provider, namely Techcorporation, we need to know more about this alternative provider and who exactly these advisers are.
The argument implies that Techcorportation offers something new in its satellite technology that the current satellite provider does not. However, the newsletter only states that there is "a company that has developed satellite technology [that] has been approved by the FTA"; it makes no other statements regarding what makes the technology unique or distinctive. In order to feel compelled that Techcorporation's technology is better, we need to know what exactly it offers that the current provider does not. In addition, we also need to know why that something new is better and by what standards. Right now, we only know that there was a consumer survey last year that indicated dissatisfaction with the current satellite provider. If we have an idea of what Techcorporation offers, we would need some items approving of it, such as a survey or testimonials from other consumers or engineers. This would augment the fact that Techcorporation offers something new--and that something new makes Techcorporation a better choice for satellite television.
We need to know whether the newsletter and/or its writers have any affiliation with Techcorporation. As it stands, we are just told that it "is our top pick for investment this term." However, if we know that the writers own stock in Techcorporation, then we know that they are biased; they are advising clients to invest in something that they will be affected by. In other words, they are writing venally; they will profit by these clients' investments. Knowing such would invalidate their advice.
The authors of this newsletter state that this is the first time in ten years that a company has developed satellite technology to compete with the current satellite provider. That is a heavy, and questionable, statement. Are there other companies that developed similar satellite technology but were just ignored? If there are, then why did clients not invest in their technology? Touching on the whether Techcorporation offers something unique and distinctive, knowing whether there were providers that offered similar technology implies that Techcorporation's technology is no more unique and therefore decreases its value.
This newsletter comes across as omniscient of this satellite technology market--and unreasonably so. Stating that Techcorporation offers better technology, better than other companies, we are made to believe that these clients should invest in Techcorporation. Additionally, we can term the newsletter's writers' omniscience as "biased"; they only speak faithfully in the company because they, for all we know, may benefit graciously from investments, more so than the clients who would be doing the investments. Having a better idea of what this market looks like and who the stakeholders are will better help us decide on how reasonable their advice is.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
the arguments are not on the right track.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 513 350
No. of Characters: 2694 1500
No. of Different Words: 202 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.759 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.251 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.105 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 91 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.52 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.864 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.52 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.311 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.499 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.175 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, regarding, so, then, therefore, in addition, such as, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 13.6137724551 198% => OK
Pronoun: 71.0 28.8173652695 246% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2804.0 2260.96107784 124% => OK
No of words: 510.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49803921569 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75217629947 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.2427697352 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.439215686275 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 872.1 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 19.0 4.96107784431 383% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.13698173 57.8364921388 113% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.833333333 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.25 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.58333333333 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.312048118009 0.218282227539 143% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.090355203332 0.0743258471296 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.071237138272 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187274747073 0.128457276422 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0272678526401 0.0628817314937 43% => 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: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.3550499002 86% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.93 8.32208582834 95% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.