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-prices markets.
The argument that luxury retailers should shift their attention from luxury goods industry as a result of its decline is not entirely logically convincing, since it does not consider some pivotal assumptions.
First, the argument assumes that the unemployed persons are financially bankrupt. It does not show that these increased set of people do not have savings plan or some possibility of not getting employed in the years to come, even months. The argument may have been strenghtened if the author have shown that the higher rate of unemployed citizens have no financial recovery plan and that the present economic climate is not bound to improve.
In addition, the argument never addresses the kinds of fears the consumer may have. These fears may totally be unrelated to purchasing higher-priced goods. And may be as a result of any factors other than consumption of luxury-goods. This argument may have been made more convincing if there are reports of more studies on consumer fears.
Finally, the argument does not consider the fact that the decline of luxury-goods purchasing may have been caused by factors not listed above. There are many factors that may have been responsible for the economic climate other than the highlighted factors. The author could have strenghtened the argument by broadening the causals of the decline.
Thus, this argument is not totally sound. The evidence in support of the conclusion that luxury goods industry will decline does little to prove that conclusion, since, it does not address the assumptions already raised. Ultimately, the argument may have been improved, if the author take into considerations the suggestions highlighted.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 268 350
No. of Characters: 1384 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.046 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.164 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.727 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 99 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 83 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 57 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 32 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.143 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.305 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.4 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.626 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.089 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 77, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'goods'' or 'good's'?
Suggestion: goods'; good's
...hould shift their attention from luxury goods industry as a result of its decline is ...
^^^^^
Line 9, column 97, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'goods'' or 'good's'?
Suggestion: goods'; good's
...n support of the conclusion that luxury goods industry will decline does little to pr...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, may, so, thus, in addition, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 3.0 11.1786427146 27% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 25.0 55.5748502994 45% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1424.0 2260.96107784 63% => OK
No of words: 268.0 441.139720559 61% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.31343283582 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.04607285448 4.56307096286 89% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80374634012 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 204.123752495 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.518656716418 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 441.9 705.55239521 63% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 19.7664670659 71% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 49.5211766699 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.714285714 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1428571429 23.324526521 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21428571429 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.123424702462 0.218282227539 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0466200455483 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0339251240033 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0774560051943 0.128457276422 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.019316368471 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.52 12.5979740519 107% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.