The author of the argument claims that setting a restaurant in Bay City that is specialized in seafood would be popular and profitable. Supporting his assertion, he or she points out that seafood consumption has increased significantly in the last five years in Bay City along with several other facts. However, before the claim can be properly evaluated, four questions need to be answered.
Firstly, will the families eat at the specialized seafood restaurant once it is established? The author of the argument unfairly assumes that they will have enough customers to make a profit on the basis of the mere fact that the majority of the Bay City families eat fewer homemade meals. However, it is possible that the residents of the city do not eat home-cooked meals because they eat at a restaurant somewhere near their workplace. And they will not necessarily go to a seafood restaurant if it is far from their workplace. If this is the case, then the author’s argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, will the restaurant to be set will provide healthy seafood? Here the author also assumes that the recommended restaurant will provide healthy seafood providing no proof. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that the restaurant will not be aware enough to serve healthy foods, which, according to the study provided by the author, the Bay City families desire. Thus, the legitimacy of the claim is sufficiently hampered.
Finally, will the specialized restaurant surely be profitable? Provided that seafood consumption has been increasing in the last five years, it is surprising that there is no specialized seafood restaurant yet. Maybe people have already tried profiting from this increasing demand and failed to do so, that led to the dissolution of the restaurant. Without showing any obstacles or reasons for not having such a restaurant yet, the author cannot assert anything firmly.
In sum, If the author is able to answer these questions in a compelling manner, then the viability of the claim can be properly assessed.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 2 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 334 350
No. of Characters: 1668 1500
No. of Different Words: 163 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.275 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.994 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.79 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 122 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 71 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.647 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.791 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.647 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.357 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.097 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 57, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a compelling manner" with adverb for "compelling"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...uthor is able to answer these questions in a compelling manner, then the viability of the claim can be...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, thus
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 13.6137724551 81% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 28.8173652695 94% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1721.0 2260.96107784 76% => OK
No of words: 334.0 441.139720559 76% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15269461078 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.27500489853 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87636056602 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 164.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.491017964072 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 530.1 705.55239521 75% => 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: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 41.6434029635 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.235294118 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.6470588235 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.76470588235 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.27844373803 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0986680416357 0.0743258471296 133% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.084440692758 0.0701772020484 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150722309324 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0802362853933 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.7 14.3799401198 88% => 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: 12.59 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.84 8.32208582834 94% => OK
difficult_words: 69.0 98.500998004 70% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.