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.
This recommendation concludes that children’s books section in Monarch Books should be replaced by a cafe in order to gain considerable profits and circumvent the competition from a combination bookstore and coffee shop named Book and Bean. To substantiate this conclusion, it provides some pieces of evidence. Nevertheless, some substantial credence must be provided to better evaluate the argument.
Based on the announcement of Book and Bean that it will open a Collegeville store, the recommendation unjustifiably implicates that Monarch Books should also open its own in-store cafe. This assumption is unconvincing without some strong proofs being offered. It is not ascertained whether Book and Bean will actually open such a store. It is entirely possible that Book and Bean abnegates the intention to open the store due to the extremely high rent. Even if the store is opened as the announcement said, will it certainly be profitable? Not exactly. Nobody can exclude the probability that it may not be as popular as expected, and the profits may be marginal if few people patronize there later. Hence, it is perfunctory to imitate Book and Bean to open a similar store without considering these possibilities.
The recommendation also mentions that the sales of children’s books are likely to decrease due that the national census data shows a dramatic decline in the percentage of children under age ten, considering turning the children’s books area into an in-store cafe as a wise choice. Obviously, it falsely equalizes the national trend with the local condition. Maybe the number of children in Collegeville has rolled on account of the policy which encourages parents to give birth to more babies. Thus opening a cafe to make profits is not necessary under this scenario. Even if the percent of children has lessened, the total sales of children’s books may not definitely diminish. In all likelihood, the sales may even raise because children may be required by their teachers and parents to buy more books to enrich their lives after school. Therefore, it is cursory to draw such a conclusion without these specific proofs being provided.
On the ground of the assumption that Book and Bean’s shop in Collegeville is extremely profitable, and also the sales of children’s books have declined sharply, the recommendation draws a partial conclusion since some indispensable factors have not been considered inclusively. The first one is that the profits is swayed by expenditure and revenue, which means that the spending of coffee machines, decoration of the cafe and the payment for barista should never be neglected. Taking all these cost into consideration, the profits may not satisfy the expectation of Monarch books. In addition, it is far-fetched to argue that it may help to evade the competition with Book and Bean by emulating it since such a change may cause the loss of its individuality, such as the reader-friendly atmosphere and various selection of books. The lack of individuality may make Monarch books fail in competition with Book and Bean, a shop which is more likely to be characteristic and well-decorated. In a sense, more specific credence should be released to better justify the conclusion.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the recommendation must at the very least provide clear evidence mentioned previously.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 551 350
No. of Characters: 2829 1500
No. of Different Words: 253 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.845 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.134 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.029 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 193 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 161 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 121 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 81 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.192 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.18 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.654 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.274 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.472 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.056 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, hence, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, well, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 35.0 28.8173652695 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2931.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 551.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.31941923775 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84493438435 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.22480994967 2.78398813304 116% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.468239564428 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 926.1 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 70.068647658 57.8364921388 121% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.24 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.04 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.24 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
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: 0.225462739188 0.218282227539 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0587007228701 0.0743258471296 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0716423196453 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121534449052 0.128457276422 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0669826270381 0.0628817314937 107% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.