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."
The recommendation states that the Monarch Books should close the section for children books and open a café instead to better compete with Regal Books. Plausible as it may sound, there are a few questions remain unaddressed.
To begin with, the board indicated that children's book will become less popular since most national census showed a decline in the percentage of population under age ten. However, whether the national census could represent the local dwellers is questionable. Perhaps the number of children at this place is increasing instead of declining because of the local policy that encourage the newly wed couple to have babies. And maybe the percentage have declined only because the number of the elders is too much. Concluding fewer children here just because the national survey showed so would be untenable. So, the board need to give more details of local children population to boost his argument.
Secondly, the author made the recommendation in the aim to compete with Regal Books, as it have opened its own café. Though the idea of having a café of the bookstore's own is excellent, Regal Books have done so does not justify its rightfulness. We still need to know if the regal books is making more money since the change, and if the two book stores are under similar condition so that we could assume that undertaking the duplicate strategy would bring about similar profit. To form a complete logic ring, the board should better show the outcome of the café at Regal Books, and the differences between the two books.
The recommendation based on the argument does not hold water as well. Even if we give credit to a foreseeable faint future of children books, and opening a café does pay back pretty well in Regal Books, it does not necessarily mean that do the same thing of opening a café is our best shot in the competition. we could invite writers to make presentations weekly in Monarch Books to draw public attention. Or, we could carry out a book-lending policy in advantage of our well-known wide selection of books. Without showing that opening a café in the bookstore outrun these options, we can not just accept it as the best shot.
To sum up, the author should answer the following questions to be more persuasive: Is the native population of children declined recently? Are the two books comparable, and how is the Regal Books doing with the café? Is there no better option than having a café section?
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 1986 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.729 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.553 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 131 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 88 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.105 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.751 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.579 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.555 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.125 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 394, Rule ID: WED_WE_D[1]
Message: Did you mean 'we'd'?
Suggestion: we'd
...e local policy that encourage the newly wed couple to have babies. And maybe the pe...
^^^
Line 13, column 311, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: We
...fé is our best shot in the competition. we could invite writers to make presentati...
^^
Line 13, column 380, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ke presentations weekly in Monarch Books to draw public attention. Or, we could c...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
however, if, may, second, secondly, so, still, well, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2054.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 4.89047619048 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.6114825808 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504761904762 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 627.3 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3694996936 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.7 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.85 5.70786347227 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249832797014 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0751102864839 0.0743258471296 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0621829450062 0.0701772020484 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147372423895 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0566359000055 0.0628817314937 90% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.1 14.3799401198 84% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.08 12.5979740519 88% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.