Given that the number of people in our country with some form of arthritis is expected to rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years, pharmaceutical companies that produce drugs for the treatment of arthritis should be very profitable. Many analysts believe that in ten years Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, the best-selling drug treatment for arthritis, will be the most profitable pharmaceutical company. But the patent on Xenon expires in three years, and other companies will then be able to produce a cheaper version of the drug. Thus, it is more likely that in ten years the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, maker of a new drug called Xylan, which clinical studies show is preferred over Xenon by seven out of ten patients suffering from the most extreme cases of arthritis.
As per the business section of some newspaper, it is believed that arthritis patients is expected to rise over next twenty years and most analysts believe that Becton Pharmaceuticals, maker of Xenon drug, will be the most profitable company. However, due to patent expiry of Xenon in next 3 years, the Perkings Pharmaceuticals, maker of new drug called Xylan, will be most profitable. From first glance by reading the argument, it is most likely to seem valid argument. However, this argument has many flaws and false assumptions which can make the author's conclusion an invalid one.
First of all, there is no data which supports that on what basis the people who are suffering from arthritis will rise from 40 million to 60 million over the next twenty years. During the twenty years span, the population growth can also rise. If population growth is more than the arthritis patients then this argument holds no water. In the same period, new pharmaceutical companies can be built and so there is no guarantee that even number of arthritis people will rise, pharmaceutical companies will make profit. As more companies present, there will be more competition in the market and more option available for the patients.
Secondly, argument explains that Becton Pharmaceuticals, which makes Xenon, will be more profitable company. This argument is refuted in the next sentence itself. If patent on Xenon expires in three years, then other company will be able to produce cheaper version of the drug. This argument is predicting about the future scenario. We cannot be comment if other companies have resource to produce the cheaper version of the drug or not. Also, we cannot comment about the future without proper statistics in our hand.
Thirdly, the last but not the least, the most profitable pharmaceutical company will be Perkins Pharmaceuticals, make of a new drug called Xylan, which will be more preferred over Xenon. If before 10 years, some other pharmaceutical company will make the cheaper and preferred drug than Xylan and Xenon, then this argument doomed to fail. Even if Xylan will be more preferred over Xenon, there is no comparison of cost between two drugs. Also, there is no comparison of effectiveness of the new drug over old drug.
As there are many conspicuous logical flaws in the argument, the conclusion derived from this argument is erroneous. There are various parameters, like no cost and effective data comparison of two drugs, which are not being measured in the argument and that can lead to the false conclusion. Also, most of the conclusion was derived by forecasting the data which cannot be guaranteed that it will be true. If author really needs to make a valid conclusion, then he/she needs to provide more concrete evidence to support the idea rather than predicting about the future data and side-stepping the important assumptions and external factors.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-06-29 | fresky | 69 | view |
| 2019-02-13 | juliettepeng | 82 | view |
| 2018-11-07 | Dhaval2693 | 55 | view |
| 2016-01-10 | sherko | 40 | view |
- In twenty years there will be fewer cars in use than there are today 66
- People are too quick to take action; instead they should stop to think of the possible consequences of what they might do. 58
- dinosaurs have capability of endothermic or not. 83
- Success in any realm of life comes more often from taking chances or risks than from careful and cautious planning. 50
- As a vibrant community of learners dedicated to inclusive excellence, the students, faculty and staff at the University of Colorado Boulder seek to be open and respectful of contrasting beliefs and opinions. Every student has a unique life experience and 16
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: 23 15
No. of Words: 479 350
No. of Characters: 2358 1500
No. of Different Words: 195 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.678 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.923 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.69 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 153 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 118 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 52 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.826 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.489 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.739 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.537 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.132 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 550, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...nd false assumptions which can make the authors conclusion an invalid one. First of ...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 245, 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.
...n, the population growth can also rise. If population growth is more than the arth...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, really, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.9520958084 154% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 28.8173652695 76% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 55.5748502994 97% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2431.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 478.0 441.139720559 108% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08577405858 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.67581127817 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77311257591 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.426778242678 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 753.3 705.55239521 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5207301314 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.695652174 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.7826086957 23.324526521 89% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.13043478261 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.254478673517 0.218282227539 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0788657187837 0.0743258471296 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0795896752149 0.0701772020484 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15122928733 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0911435997653 0.0628817314937 145% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.9 14.3799401198 90% => 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: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.6 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.