The following appeared as part of an article in a business magazine.
"A recent study rating 300 male and female Mentian advertising executives according to the average number of hours they sleep per night showed an association between the amount of sleep the executives need and the success of their firms. Of the advertising firms studied, those whose executives reported needing no more than 6 hours of sleep per night had higher profit margins and faster growth. These results suggest that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire only people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author of this arguments argues that for the prosperity of the business, it should only hire the excutives who sleeps no more than 6 hours a day. The argument falis to provide with the several key factors with the help of which the it could be evaluated. To support the argument, author reasons about the study which was undertaken of meager number of 300 people. However, on better scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support to the argument. Hence argument can be considered as incomplete and unsubstantiated.
First of all, the author's argument is based on the study done for the 300 male and female. This gives rise to many questions such as who are these 300 people? There is no mention about their vocation. Also, it is necessary to know whether, these people are working at day jobs or nights? Because, it is normally seen that people working nights usually possess less sleep. Thus, there are many questions that need to be answered for the author to hold this peice vialble.
Secondly, the author study depicts that those, whose executives need no more sleep than 6 hours have higher rating and progress. This gives risse to many queries such as, How is the number of hours of sleep of an executive is a measure for the progess of the advertising firm? It is also possible that the executive might be awake for most hours a day but, instead of doing the firms works he spends time liesurely would than be the firm's progress increase or hindered? So, this example provides proof that the study is baseless and thus holds no credit.
Also, here there is an analogy between the Mentian Advertising firm and the other firms. But, this analogy creates many question such as, on what basis the comparison has been done? What if the experience of one executive is very much and the other executive is a neophyte, and still the newer one produces better results than the experienced one? What are the basic qualites based on which the comparison has been done? Therefore, there are many clarification to be made by the author for the proper examination of the argument.
In conclusion the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, author must proved with some clear and concrete piece of evidence, perhaps by the way of detailed analysis of the advertising firms that are progressive. The better assessment of the argument can be done if the data is more clear and containing the credible proof that supports it.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 15, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
The author of this arguments argues that for the prosperit...
^^^^
Line 1, column 233, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'it'?
Suggestion: the; it
...eral key factors with the help of which the it could be evaluated. To support the argu...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 479, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ittle credible support to the argument. Hence argument can be considered as incomplet...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd unsubstantiated. First of all, the authors argument is based on the study done for...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 116, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun question seems to be countable; consider using: 'many questions'.
Suggestion: many questions
... other firms. But, this analogy creates many question such as, on what basis the comparison h...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 443, Rule ID: MANY_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun clarification seems to be countable; consider using: 'many clarifications'.
Suggestion: many clarifications
...son has been done? Therefore, there are many clarification to be made by the author for the proper...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ion of the argument. In conclusion the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 370, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ng the credible proof that supports it.
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'by the way', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.217758985201 0.25644967241 85% => OK
Verbs: 0.16067653277 0.15541462614 103% => OK
Adjectives: 0.093023255814 0.0836205057962 111% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0443974630021 0.0520304965353 85% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0232558139535 0.0272364105082 85% => OK
Prepositions: 0.120507399577 0.125424944231 96% => OK
Participles: 0.0422832980973 0.0416121511921 102% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.5117743282 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0211416490486 0.026700313972 79% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.133192389006 0.113004496875 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.014799154334 0.0255425247493 58% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0274841437632 0.0127820249294 215% => Maybe 'Which' is overused. If other WH_determiners like 'Who, What, Whom, Whose...' are used too in sentences, then there are no issues.
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2483.0 2731.13054187 91% => OK
No of words: 430.0 446.07635468 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.77441860465 6.12365571057 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55372829156 4.57801047555 99% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.306976744186 0.378187486979 81% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.244186046512 0.287650121315 85% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.16511627907 0.208842608468 79% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.0976744186047 0.135150697306 72% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5117743282 2.79052419416 90% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 207.018472906 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495348837209 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 55.3179434348 52.1807786196 106% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 18.6956521739 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 37.8604042231 57.7814097925 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 107.956521739 141.986410481 76% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.6956521739 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.695652173913 0.724660767414 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 3.58251231527 223% => Correct essay format wanted or double check grammar & spelling issues after essay writing.
Readability: 43.1142568251 51.9672348444 83% => OK
Elegance: 1.66666666667 1.8405768891 91% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422614163638 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.108224394135 0.135418324435 80% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.068504082854 0.0829849096947 83% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.544643821275 0.58762219726 93% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.152218886021 0.147661913831 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.166886345304 0.193483328276 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.105152109928 0.0970749176394 108% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.418818764292 0.42659136922 98% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0533570946583 0.0774707102158 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.299286387409 0.312017818177 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0631772163425 0.0698173142475 90% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.82512315271 124% => OK
Positive topic words: 11.0 6.46551724138 170% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 5.0 2.82389162562 177% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => 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.