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"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author proposes that the replacement of butter to margarine had not much of a difference as the customers hardly shown any complaints or distaste for the switch; however, the generalizations and the assumptions that the author present are clearly flawed and requires a closer examination.
The memorandum asserts that the customers had displayed little impact of the change from butter to margarine from a survey. We have to question how the survey was conducted. Did the questionnaires of the survey provide bias selection and options that led the customers to believe that the margarine was the better choice rather than butter? Who were the people that answered the survey representing the 2 percent that disliked butter? The differences in gender, age, and ethnicity account for the survey's selection bias resulting in a skewed statistic. The Happy Pancake House would have liked for the switch as it may save cost for the restaurant; hence, the restaurant focused on the customers to be unwavered by the change. As a result, for the author to conclude that the change had minimal effect is an overstatement that requires more in depth analysis as to confirm whether or not the change was favorable.
Furthermore, the authors assumes that the servers reported the number of customers did not complain when they were given margarine. The need for clarity of the actual numbers should be taken into consideration when deciding the conclusion that those who asked for butter did not mind receiving margarine. It is plausible to question if the customer could differentiate between butter and margarine. The notion is unclear when the servers overlook the customers who complained and only mentioned the customers who did not complain in the memorandum for Happy Pancake House restaurants. In addition, the location of the restaurant throughout southwestern United States could provide some evidence of the type of customers that answered the survey. The people in southwestern United States may be more casual and forgiving compared to people from northern United States, such as in New York or Washington, D.C. The number of customers should encompass various customers to determine the change was a good option for the restaurant to make in the first place.
Moreover, the memorandum states that the customers were unable to distinguish between margarine and butter. This may be the very reason for the low percent of indifference for the change. Because the customer did not mind the switch between the two options, the assumption concludes that the margarine was a good switch. Although the two are highly similar in taste, the customers are reluctant to make a large complaint in the first place. However, the author's assumption of simply stating that the switch is arbitrary should be reconsider the validity in the memorandum.
In conclusion, the author does make questionable assumptions that the change from butter to margarine was a good choice based on the survey from the customers. Consequently, the author should look into the analysis of the survey if the survey itself is valid and solidify the notion if all customers were satisfied with the switch and not overlook the actual complaints that the customers have made as well.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 498, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'surveys'' or 'survey's'?
Suggestion: surveys'; survey's
...der, age, and ethnicity account for the surveys selection bias resulting in a skewed st...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 874, Rule ID: WHETHER[7]
Message: Perhaps you can shorten this phrase to just 'whether'. It is correct though if you mean 'regardless of whether'.
Suggestion: whether
...es more in depth analysis as to confirm whether or not the change was favorable. Furthermo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 455, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...plaint in the first place. However, the authors assumption of simply stating that the s...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 531, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'reconsidered'?
Suggestion: reconsidered
... that the switch is arbitrary should be reconsider the validity in the memorandum. In ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'consequently', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'so', 'well', 'as to', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'as a result', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.257950530035 0.25644967241 101% => OK
Verbs: 0.16961130742 0.15541462614 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0618374558304 0.0836205057962 74% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0353356890459 0.0520304965353 68% => OK
Pronouns: 0.00883392226148 0.0272364105082 32% => OK
Prepositions: 0.136042402827 0.125424944231 108% => OK
Participles: 0.030035335689 0.0416121511921 72% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.83085499677 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0247349823322 0.026700313972 93% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.167844522968 0.113004496875 149% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.017667844523 0.0255425247493 69% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0229681978799 0.0127820249294 180% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3260.0 2731.13054187 119% => OK
No of words: 527.0 446.07635468 118% => OK
Chars per words: 6.18595825427 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79129216042 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.42504743833 0.378187486979 112% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.299810246679 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.216318785579 0.208842608468 104% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.159392789374 0.135150697306 118% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83085499677 2.79052419416 101% => OK
Unique words: 221.0 207.018472906 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.41935483871 0.469332199767 89% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 48.2626837895 52.1807786196 92% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 23.9545454545 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.6625190158 57.7814097925 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.181818182 141.986410481 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9545454545 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.818181818182 0.724660767414 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 53.9355701225 51.9672348444 104% => OK
Elegance: 1.98347107438 1.8405768891 108% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.408177505373 0.441005458295 93% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.139834996144 0.135418324435 103% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0593854660044 0.0829849096947 72% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.667618827959 0.58762219726 114% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149496458919 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.210307697799 0.193483328276 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0652772750567 0.0970749176394 67% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.707121239081 0.42659136922 166% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0404196954378 0.0774707102158 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.313793835555 0.312017818177 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0502216970031 0.0698173142475 72% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.33743842365 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.87684729064 58% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 13.0 6.46551724138 201% => OK
Negative topic words: 3.0 5.36822660099 56% => 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: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.