The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants.
"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers. In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine."
The author claims that customers in Happy Pancake House restaurants do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine because of the server's report that few of them who asked butter complained when the restaurant provide them margarine. He or she offers an interesting arguments, but it suffers from some logical flaws and gaps in evidence. While connections suggested looks reasonable, there are many other possible scenarios that should discourage author from assuring the claim.
First of all, author assumes that average of 98 people out of 100 were happy with the margarine just because they had not complained. However people does not always complain whenever they are not satisfied. They might not complain for several reasons. For example, they might hesitate to make server embarrassed, they might be indifferent to the change, or they might be reluctant to waste their times for showing their unhappiness. They might choose other option than complaining: not revisiting, writing a bad review in their blog, etc. We can not be sure that they were really content with the change without more information. What is more, the author does not offer precise information about who was considered to calculate the ratio. The restaurant might have small proportion of menu which includes butter. Only 10% or smaller ratio of customers might ordered menu that includes butter. So we must prompted to ask "was 2 percent was calculated by considering all customers including who was not served butter, or was it calculated by considering only those who was served butter?" If former is the case, high proportion of customers who face the change might actually express their discontent about the change.
Secondly, the author also assumes that customers do not separate butter from margarine or they include margarine in their term 'butter' based on server's report. However there is no reason to believe that sever always tell truth. Severs might hide truth for several reasons. They might want to flatter their boss or they might be think customer's complain implies their incompetence and reluctant to show their incompetence etc. We need detailed information such as direct survey to customers to assure that small ratio of customers complain when they are served margarine instead.
Let us assume, though that server's report was truth. However we can not take it for granted that they do not discern butter and their term 'butter' represents either butter or margarine merely because they do not complain. They might not complain just because they prefer margarine than butter. Or they might be indifferent to whether served dish includes margarine or butter. Without more precise explanation of the reason why the consumers did not complain, we can not determine whether they distinguish butter from margarine or not.
To sum up, the author's assumption that customers do not discriminate between butter and margarine or their term 'butter' refer either butter or margarine is logically flawed based on above mentioned reasons. He or she should closely examine all the conditions and other factors. In conclusion, the author's argument reflects unsupported claims without clear reasons or evidence.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 25 15
No. of Words: 521 350
No. of Characters: 2685 1500
No. of Different Words: 235 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.778 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.154 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.559 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 209 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 145 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 99 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.84 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.397 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.319 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.166 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 328, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[2]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'argument'?
Suggestion: argument
...garine. He or she offers an interesting arguments, but it suffers from some logical flaws...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 135, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...e just because they had not complained. However people does not always complain wheneve...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 160, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ir term butter based on servers report. However there is no reason to believe that seve...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 54, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
..., though that servers report was truth. However we can not take it for granted that the...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 16, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rom margarine or not. To sum up, the authors assumption that customers do not discri...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 297, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...s and other factors. In conclusion, the authors argument reflects unsupported claims wi...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, however, if, look, really, second, secondly, so, while, for example, in conclusion, such as, first of all, to sum up, what is more
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 22.0 11.1786427146 197% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 28.8173652695 198% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2750.0 2260.96107784 122% => OK
No of words: 521.0 441.139720559 118% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2783109405 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.77759609229 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6406898349 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.464491362764 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 837.0 705.55239521 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.9917683241 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.769230769 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0384615385 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07692307692 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.134667569913 0.218282227539 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0422784191425 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0562637439699 0.0701772020484 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0977749330925 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0620423540863 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.05 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.