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.
The contention put forward by the Board of Directors of Monarch Books in their effort to justify the opening of a café in Monarch Books is rife with errors. The directors have failed to consider whether opening a café would really cause a surge in the number of customers if a café was already present near the bookstore, have failed to rely on a more accurate and an unambiguous survey, and have wrongly assumed Regal Books and Monarch Books as equivalent.
The Board of Directors of the Monarch Books seem to be under the tacit assumption that opening a café would attract more customers, which is flawed. There is no reason given in the argument to explain why opening a café would increase the number of customers in the bookstore. Even if it is assumed that doing so would increase the customer base, still the contention discounts the possibility of an even better café present nearby which could take away the potential customers of Monarch Books. Had the directors stated in their argument that there are no nearby café, then the argument would have earned more credence.
The “recent national consensus” mentioned by the directors in their contention to bolster their argument of discontinuing under-10 age group children’s books appears vague. We are not told when such survey was carried out, what the sample size was, and whether it could veraciously account for the population of children under the age of 10 in the neighborhood or region near Monarch Books. It could be possible that the population of this particular category of children was much higher near the Monarch Books bookstore and was an outlier in the survey data and hence was not included. If the aforementioned point has some veracity, then it might also be true that major part of the revenue which the bookstore made actually comes from the books designed for the children under the age of 10. The directors should have relied on a survey pertaining to the area near Monarch Books bookstore than simply trusting a vague national consensus to make their argument more compelling.
Assuming that Regal Books is the same as Monarch Books is also fallacious. Regal Books could be completely different from Monarch Books. The former could be making more revenue than the latter or could be having more space to open up a café. Clearly, this is not the case with Monarch Books which neither has space nor would be making adequate revenue due to shutting down of one of the children’s books section. Also, in the argument, it is not mentioned if Regal Books was able to entice more customers by opening a café. Hence, their motive for opening a café could be completely different from that of Monarch Books. If there would have been a considerable amount of similarity between the two bookstores, then the directors could have made a point.
Considering the above-mentioned errors in the argument of the Board of Directors, it cannot be readily accepted and behooves them to do a more thorough analysis before reaching a conclusion.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 5.5 out of 6
Category: Excellent Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 512 350
No. of Characters: 2456 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.757 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.797 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.557 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 166 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.947 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.801 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.474 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.398 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.591 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.172 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ks and Monarch Books as equivalent. The Board of Directors of the Monarch Books...
^^^
Line 3, column 565, Rule ID: THERE_RE_MANY[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. Did you mean 'cafés'?
Suggestion: cafés
...their argument that there are no nearby café, then the argument would have earned mo...
^^^^
Line 5, column 995, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...to make their argument more compelling. Assuming that Regal Books is the same as...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 636, Rule ID: IF_WOULD_HAVE_VBN[1]
Message: Did you mean 'had been'?
Suggestion: had been
...nt from that of Monarch Books. If there would have been a considerable amount of similarity bet...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, hence, if, really, so, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2539.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 512.0 441.139720559 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.958984375 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.75682846001 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.71426688453 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 217.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.423828125 0.468620217663 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 780.3 705.55239521 111% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.3008776697 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.631578947 119.503703932 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.9473684211 23.324526521 116% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.63157894737 5.70786347227 46% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.342996779692 0.218282227539 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.13510963021 0.0743258471296 182% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.067319381881 0.0701772020484 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.203943230446 0.128457276422 159% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0987944331871 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.3550499002 111% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 98.0 98.500998004 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.5 12.3882235529 141% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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.