The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but especially on nonessential items. Since luxury goods are, by nature, nonessential, this market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, and luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets.
The author of this argument made some seemingly bogus claims considering the premises, or perhaps, he has refused to explicitly explain how some of these premises holds true in regards to the conclusion.
First he pointed out the increase in employment rate as the cause of the current decline in purchase of luxury goods but refused to be drawn to the fact that the increase in inflation, which of course has a direct effect on purchase of essential goods such as food items, clothes, as well as housing could, in one way or the other indirectly affect the balance that had existed between purchase of essential and non-essential items. This holds true due to the fact that consumers, of course, as a result of the inevitable precipitous increase in price of certain essential commodities would be forced to be frugal in their economic decision, to avoid any frivolous spending, with non-essential goods the first to suffer from this implication.
The author also failed to address the possibility of strict government regulations and sanctions that might be associated with purchase of certain luxury goods. For instance, in certain countries, the bulk of their luxury goods took its source from import from other countries. Government in these countries place embargo on some of these goods and prevent the inflow of these goods which will in turn deprive consumers access to these goods, hence, the purchase rate of these goods will plummet. Luxury goods such as motor vehicles could be facing stricter regulatory measure from custom body as it is becoming increasingly difficult to import these goods successfully into different countries.
The author also omit in his argument the direct effect of natural disaster as a reason for the drop in purchase of luxury goods by merely and strictly reiterating on consumer fear and increased unemployment only to bolster his conclusion. Some natural disasters, such as diseases, especially ones that have become epidemic could prevent people from going about their normal activities and as a result, more attention would be drawn into combating and ameliorating the direct effect of these natural disasters than it is to purchasing luxury goods.
It is lucid that there are a lot of flaws associated with the premises used to reinforce the conclusion that luxury goods is on the decline unless some assumptions like inflation, strict government regulations and sanction, and effect of natural disasters are also put into consideration.
Ultimately, one could say the conclusion of the argument above holds true, or more valid, only if the author becomes less parochial but more eclectic to explain other reasons that could result in the drop of luxury goods purchased which have been clearly evinced above.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 7 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 1 2
No. of Sentences: 11 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2270 1500
No. of Different Words: 206 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.078 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.656 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 167 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 40.636 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 14.748 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.909 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.425 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.769 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.15 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 175, Rule ID: IN_REGARD_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'regarding' or 'with regard to'.
Suggestion: regarding; with regard to
...n how some of these premises holds true in regards to the conclusion. First he pointed ou...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...lds true in regards to the conclusion. First he pointed out the increase in emp...
^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...first to suffer from this implication. The author also failed to address the po...
^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...successfully into different countries. The author also omit in his argument the...
^^^
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...than it is to purchasing luxury goods. It is lucid that there are a lot of flaw...
^^^
Line 10, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sters are also put into consideration. Ultimately, one could say the conclusion...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, so, well, for instance, of course, such as, as a result, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 74.0 55.5748502994 133% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2323.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 5.19686800895 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73417982786 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.474272930649 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 724.5 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 11.0 19.7664670659 56% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 40.0 22.8473053892 175% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 81.9645156039 57.8364921388 142% => OK
Chars per sentence: 211.181818182 119.503703932 177% => OK
Words per sentence: 40.6363636364 23.324526521 174% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.72727272727 5.70786347227 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.146756758143 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.062985416561 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0331932699007 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0718384050389 0.128457276422 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0417121129294 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 23.4 14.3799401198 163% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.88 48.3550499002 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 18.9 12.197005988 155% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.77 12.5979740519 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.4 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 98.500998004 109% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 27.0 12.3882235529 218% => Linsear_write_formula is high.
gunning_fog: 18.0 11.1389221557 162% => OK
text_standard: 27.0 11.9071856287 227% => The average readability is very high. Good job!
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.