One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success in selling cereal, we recommend that Bargain Brand now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible.
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The argument recommends that the Bargain Brand produces other low-priced food product, since in the production of low-cost cereal; it precedes other top-selling cereal companies. This argument fails to mention several key factors by which it could be evaluated. Hence, the argument is unconvincing.
A threshold presumption is that since the other top-selling companies are not able to compete with the Bargain Brand in any way, the company should increase its prices to make more profit. However, it is a facial assumption; inasmuch as the article did not mention to the statistic related to the income and cost of the Bargain Brand and the others counterpart companies. Maybe, the main reason of the company's profit is its trivial little cost in contrast to the other companies, and if it increases more than the current value, it will not as cost-effective as it was before the price increment. In this case, the company will lose its potential in appealing the consumers, and other top brands attract the customers by their better quality. The argument could have been much fortified if it explicitly stated that what is its profit in comparison to the other companies’ profits.
Second, the argument claims that the company should expand its production based on its current success. However, the term of success is a vague term. There is no any concrete definition for the success. If the success is valued based on the monetary standard, there should be a comprehensive statistic about the cost and earn of the company and its contrast with the other companies to assure that it is successful. Or if the success is evaluated on the popularity, there should be a noteworthy survey about the company's popularity among the people. Because of the vague definition of the success, it cannot be derived as a cogent deduction that this term is valuable in a scoop of financial or popularity.
Finally, even in a case which the company is successful in both aspect of economic and fame. The argument focally overgeneralized its success to the other food production and posits that it will be successful on the other food production. On the contrary, it cannot be accepted as it assumed in the text. Maybe, the raw materials and it manufacturing process of cereal are cheap and can sell it with low-cost. However, another food production's initial process does not support the affordable cost for its final product. In this scenario, the company will face a knotty financial problem.
All in all, the argument is flawed for the reasons as mentioned above and it is, therefore, unpersuasive. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned to the exact stand of the company in comparison to the other companies, the clear definition of term success, and profitability of this method of sale on the other productions. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debates.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 343, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'others'' or 'other's'?
Suggestion: others'; other's
...e and cost of the Bargain Brand and the others counterpart companies. Maybe, the main ...
^^^^^^
Line 5, column 160, Rule ID: NOW[2]
Message: Did you mean 'now' (=at this moment) instead of 'no' (negation)?
Suggestion: now
...rm of success is a vague term. There is no any concrete definition for the success...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['finally', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'in contrast', 'in contrast to', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.234234234234 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.122522522523 0.15541462614 79% => OK
Adjectives: 0.108108108108 0.0836205057962 129% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0342342342342 0.0520304965353 66% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0468468468468 0.0272364105082 172% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.124324324324 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0306306306306 0.0416121511921 74% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.95832875962 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0216216216216 0.026700313972 81% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.138738738739 0.113004496875 123% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0252252252252 0.0255425247493 99% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00540540540541 0.0127820249294 42% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2952.0 2731.13054187 108% => OK
No of words: 488.0 446.07635468 109% => OK
Chars per words: 6.04918032787 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70007681154 4.57801047555 103% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.368852459016 0.378187486979 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.293032786885 0.287650121315 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.202868852459 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.135245901639 0.135150697306 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95832875962 2.79052419416 106% => OK
Unique words: 215.0 207.018472906 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440573770492 0.469332199767 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.7811334053 52.1807786196 95% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 21.2173913043 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.3311062677 57.7814097925 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.347826087 141.986410481 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.2173913043 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.521739130435 0.724660767414 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 50.5206699929 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.91150442478 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.302358919454 0.441005458295 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138600594198 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0843096812325 0.0829849096947 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.590623468708 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.140694127606 0.147661913831 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.137504218115 0.193483328276 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0824338532138 0.0970749176394 85% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.537882381127 0.42659136922 126% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0399584731342 0.0774707102158 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.233599678292 0.312017818177 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586213541994 0.0698173142475 84% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.33743842365 168% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.82512315271 0% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 7.0 5.36822660099 130% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.82389162562 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.