According to a memo, the president of Primo Doll Manufacturing Inc. has made a prediction about an increase in profits generated from the sales of an improved version of a doll. The president came to this prediction based on information provided by surveys conducted on parents and the popularity of a previously marketed doll among children. However, several unstated assumptions have been made by the author, that, if untrue, would significantly undermine the prediction. Before we can proceed with the evaluation of the prediction, three questions need to be answered by the president.
First, will the preference of children remain the same in the future? It might be possible that with the advancement in technology, the current version of the doll, even though made more robust, will be rendered obsolete. For instance, with an increase in the availability of bombastic robot toys, the demand for meek dolls would be seriously attenuated. Moreover, there has been an increase in the use of computers, mobile phones, and tablets, which is influencing the current gen children to incline more toward digital toys such as video games. If these facts are true, then the viability of the argument would be seriously undermined.
Second, can the competitor be expected to not change its strategies? It might be a possibility that with increased funding for research and development of materials, Optima comes up with even better materials that are not only more durable but also more non-toxic and safer in nature. In addition, Optima can expand its product profile by innovating new designs that might be perceived as even more attractive by the children. Thus, if these events happen in the future, then the prediction will not hold water.
Third, is the data from the survey reliable and trustworthy? It might be the case that the questions in the survey are poorly designed with an unscientific approach. Moreover, the sample size considered in the process of collecting statistics might be insufficient to account for the whole population of customers. Moreover, the president has no facts about the age of the children who are using the doll. For instance, younger children are more reckless and might treat toys with less care as compared to older kids. If these events happen, then the prediction of the president is highly likely to fail.
In conclusion, the prediction as it stands now is seriously flawed due to the unwarranted assumptions made by the president. Although the president believes that improving the durability will cause an increase in revenue, questioning the legitimacy of seemingly veracious facts should not be overlooked. In order to fully understand the effectiveness of the prediction, the author needs to present evidence, perhaps in the form of scientific research studies. If the president fails to answer even one of these questions, the prediction would probably fail to be true.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 4 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 472 350
No. of Characters: 2387 1500
No. of Different Words: 232 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.661 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.057 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.809 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 76 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.522 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.46 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.504 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.07 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 316, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Two successive sentences begin with the same adverb. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
... for the whole population of customers. Moreover, the president has no facts about the a...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, moreover, second, so, then, third, thus, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 55.5748502994 124% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2460.0 2260.96107784 109% => OK
No of words: 472.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21186440678 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6610686524 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90956715186 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510593220339 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 764.1 705.55239521 108% => 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
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.712320685 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.5 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6666666667 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29166666667 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.173310237557 0.218282227539 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590987043399 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0841362800196 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.107139907524 0.128457276422 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0813323466566 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 98.500998004 136% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.