The following is a recommendation from the Board of Directors of Monarch Books.
"We recommend that Monarch Books open a café in its store. Monarch, having been in business at the same location for more than twenty years, has a large customer base because it is known for its wide selection of books on all subjects. Clearly, opening the café would attract more customers. Space could be made for the café by discontinuing the children's book section, which will probably become less popular given that the most recent national census indicated a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten. Opening a café will allow Monarch to attract more customers and better compete with Regal Books, which recently opened its own café."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the recommendation, the arguer suggests Monarch Books to open a café by discontinuing the children’s book section in order to attract more customers and better compete with Regal Book. To support the recommendation, he/she makes an assumption with the cite of the recent national census which indicating a significant decrease in the percentage of the population under age ten. Plausible as the argument seems, without definite answers to the following questions.
First of all, the first assumption is made on the original large customer base of the bookstore. The arguer insists that it is clear that the new café would get more people’s attention. However, the specific reason that why café has such a function of a store’s business is not presented in the argument. Additionally, not everyone is interested in café, for example, the people who are not fond of coffee or dislike its strong smell. Without taking those questions into consideration, the arguer’s recommendation cannot be conclusively drawn.
Moreover, it is claimed that new café could better compete with another store which has already done before. First, the argument provides no evidence that more people are attracted to Regal Books by café. Besides, even if Regal Books becomes more attractive to the customers, we are not informed of whether the method is equally efficient for Monarch Books. Without answering these questions, the arguer’s recommendation is untenable.
The last but not least, its biggest attraction depicted by the arguer as the wide selection of books on all subjects, which will be deteriorated after reducing the children section. Therefore, the argument cites a recent national census that the amount of children under age ten is not as high as before so that children’s section is not needed, but it lacks the data concerning the faction of children in this area, actually we cannot determine if the business of Monarch Books will be influenced. What is more, as a result of disappearing of children section, the parents keeping company with their children will reduce time coming to this store as well. Consequently, unless the questions can be solved, the recommend of raising store’s attraction is useless.
In conclusion, the recommendation of opening new café which substituting the children section could provide information and potentially appearing to more customers, but, unfortunately, it is unpersuasive as it stands. Before conclusion, the questions such as the function of new café, the influence of deleting children section should be assured. After all, a new café could be dangerous for the store as it may lose neither customer nor money.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 713, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...ly, unless the questions can be solved, the recommend of raising store's attraction is u...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, besides, but, consequently, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, therefore, well, after all, for example, in conclusion, such as, as a result, first of all, 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: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2291.0 2260.96107784 101% => OK
No of words: 425.0 441.139720559 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39058823529 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.54043259262 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.12050568167 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510588235294 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 695.7 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Interrogative: 1.0 0.471057884232 212% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.9373527364 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 120.578947368 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.3684210526 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.52631578947 5.70786347227 167% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.250304840462 0.218282227539 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.079951085917 0.0743258471296 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0496483086153 0.0701772020484 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.149066871951 0.128457276422 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0351601454828 0.0628817314937 56% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.28 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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: 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.