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.
The author makes an argument in favor of establishing a in-door cafe' in replacing the children section in the Monarch Books. Stated in this way, the argument distorts the view of the situation by manipulating facts and providing weak examples. To bolster their points, the author provides a census that indicates a significance decrease in the population of children in the future. However, careful scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides minimal credibility towards the author's claims.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that Book and Bean would be a success and stands as a major opposition to the Monarch books. There is no evidence that stated that the innovation introduced by the Book and Bean would be met with success and acceptance from the people of Collegeville. Readers prefer to keep books far away from edibles in order to protect the book from soling. Many prefer the silence and a friendly atmosphere to read rather than the chatter and loud atmosphere a coffee shop provides. Adding to this, there is a high chance of coffee being spilled on the books in the Book and Bean and ruining the said books. This might deliver a huge loss in the form of replacing these books. Hence, the argument would be much more convincing if it explicitly stated that the Book and Bean is met with huge profits and increase in customers than the Monarch books or that the Book and Bean has installed many new features that guarantee the attention and appreciation of its customers.
Additionally, the author also claims that the national census data indicates a huge decrease in the population of children. Even if this presented data is assumed to be true, it does not describe how it is applicable to the Collegevile. To illustrate, imagine that the number of children in a state A is 100 and the number of children in state B is 1000. The average of these states is 550. This number does not imply that both these states posses 550 children but just represents an average. Similarly, the census provided on national scale cannot guarantee the decrease in population in the Collegevile. If the argument had provided evidence that these national census is applicable to Collegeville explicitly then it would have been more convincing to the reader.
Furthermore, the author failed to answer many questions. Is the reason for popularity for Monarch books are friendly atmosphere and wide range of books and not any other factors? Is the establishment of Book and Bean confirmed or is it just a speculation? Will replacing the children section in Monarch Books make them more profitable or deem them as "copy cats" as they are clearly copying the ideas from their rivals? In the last case there is even a possibility that the Book and Beans can pursue legal means to stop the methods adopted by Monarch books for better sales and profits. Without answering these questions, the reader is left wondering whether these claims are more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidences.
In conclusion, the author's statements remain unpersuasive as they stand. The author must provide better analysis or detailed data regarding the need for modifications in the Monarch Books. Finally, to make a better assessment of the author's argument, they should provide more information answering the above raised questions or supporting the assumptions their argument is based on.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 566 350
No. of Characters: 2779 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.878 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.91 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.681 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 202 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 154 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 109 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.963 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.271 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.444 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.28 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.28 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.071 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 55, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...es an argument in favor of establishing a in-door cafe in replacing the children ...
^
Line 3, column 606, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...rease in population in the Collegevile. If the argument had provided evidence that...
^^
Line 5, column 233, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...lly, to make a better assessment of the authors argument, they should provide more info...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, furthermore, hence, however, if, regarding, similarly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 11.1786427146 224% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2840.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 566.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01766784452 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87757670434 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76142023171 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.448763250883 0.468620217663 96% => OK
syllable_count: 884.7 705.55239521 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4418959574 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.185185185 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.962962963 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.40740740741 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 18.0 8.20758483034 219% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.234827250083 0.218282227539 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0622813564413 0.0743258471296 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0789365809468 0.0701772020484 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117038024819 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.116307008165 0.0628817314937 185% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.84 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 98.500998004 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.