The following is a recommendation from the business manager of Monarch Books.
“Since its opening in Collegeville twenty years ago, Monarch Books has developed a large customer base due to its reader-friendly atmosphere and wide selection of books on all subjects. Last month, Book and Bean, a combination bookstore and coffee shop, announced its intention to open a Collegeville store. Monarch Books should open its own in-store café in the space currently devoted to children’s books. Given recent national census data indicating a significant decline in the percentage of the population under age ten, sales of children’s books are likely to decline. By replacing its children’s books section with a café, Monarch Books can increase profits and ward off competition from Book and Bean”.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
Monarch Books should not make a rash and incorrect decision based on insufficient and tenuous data. There must be further evidence provided to bolster this argument. Monarch Books made the faulty assumption of increasing profits, that it would beat its competition by replacing the children’s section with a café, based on three mistaken reasons: the national census data does not fully represent Collegeville’s population; Collegeville citizens are passionate about cafes in bookstores; and that Monarch Books would be successful in rebuilding their business model.
The national census data does not accurately nor fully represent the children’s population in Collegeville. The selected sample size, methodology, validity and reliability are unknown for this national census data study. Maybe the sampling did not include anyone from Collegeville, as it could be a very small town; maybe the general national trend in majority of cities are declining in children’s population, but the children’s population in Collegeville has boomed. The generalised national data cannot represent Collegeville’s individual town’s condition. If the specific Collegeville population data for children under 10 is represented as evidence, then this evidence could strengthen Monarch Books’ claim.
As the excerpt suggests, Monarch Books has a large customer-base is due to its reader-friendly environment and an abundance of book choices. Demolishing the children’s books section would be a self-sabotaging act for Monarch Books, as it is limiting the selection of books, as well as destroying the reader-friendly atmosphere. Even if the national consensus is representative of Collegeville, it doesn’t mean that Monarch Books would sell less children books. The local government could just have implemented “50 books per year” initiative for young children, and local schools are looking to purchase plenty of children books. Or local adults are buying children books for their young relatives out of town. Again, evidence regarding the reasons for purchasing children’s books would help make a more informed decision for Monarch Books.
Monarch Books again hastily assumed that the Collegeville citizens are thrilled about the idea of the combination of a bookstore and café, and that it would lead to a soar in profits. Monarch Books jumped quickly to the conclusion that Book and Bean would take their regular consumers away, because of the unique selling point of selling coffee within the bookstore. However, the locals probably dislike caffeinated beverages; or they might not want to have coffee while book browsing or studying. Perhaps a local survey that sample Monarch Books customers on their beverage preferences, and whether a coffee and book combined establishment would attract them, would help Monarch Books make a more informed decision.
Finally, if the factors above mentioned are successfully established, it does not necessarily lead to an increase of profits for Monarch Books. If Monarch Books decide to revamp and refurnish the children’s book area, there will be significant costs, such as purchasing coffee equipment, tables and chairs, barista and other staff, etc. The coffee house licensing, in-house staff training, and following health and safety regulations would be another giant addition for costs. Also, by quixotically adding a café into the scene, Monarch Books did not consider the risks it is taking without any previous café-running experience. With the revenue unknown with the new competition in town, and the certain additional costs from renovating, and the risk from changing their business model, there is no guarantee for Monarch Books’ profit to rise. Risk evaluations, specific costs, and long-term business outlook predictions must be provided as evidence to further substantiate Monarch Books’ argument.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 581 350
No. of Characters: 3188 1500
No. of Different Words: 282 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.91 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.487 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.93 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 236 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 202 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 146 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.629 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.391 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.347 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.546 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 451, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun children is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...os;t mean that Monarch Books would sell less children books. The local government co...
^^^^
Line 17, column 1015, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...stantiate Monarch Books' argument.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, however, if, look, may, regarding, so, then, well, while, in addition, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 50.0 55.5748502994 90% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3367.0 2260.96107784 149% => OK
No of words: 580.0 441.139720559 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.80517241379 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90746259869 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.23456731012 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 293.0 204.123752495 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.505172413793 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 1006.2 705.55239521 143% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 9.0 2.70958083832 332% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 11.0 1.67365269461 657% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.7541917914 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.291666667 119.503703932 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.58333333333 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.345885260141 0.218282227539 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.115959739965 0.0743258471296 156% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0824501362858 0.0701772020484 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.211516618109 0.128457276422 165% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0650019369473 0.0628817314937 103% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.3799401198 125% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.71 12.5979740519 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.29 8.32208582834 112% => OK
difficult_words: 164.0 98.500998004 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => 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
---------------------
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.