At the first glance, the argument seems pretty convincing in portraying that if a business wants to prosper, it should hire people who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night. A careful scrutiny of the argument sheds light on a plethora of flaws which test the accuracy of the argument.
Firstly, the argument posits that the advertising firms whose employees sleep for less than 6 hours per night have witnessed higher profit margins and faster growth. This causal occurrence might be a coincidence. There might be many other reasons which can explain the profit margins or the success of the firms. For instance, the executives might have a huge workload on them and strict deadlines which they need to meet which inhibits them from sleeping from more than six hours per night. This implies that the employees are very diligent and to finish their workload, they make a trade-off to sleep less than 6 hours. Hence, if this assumption holds true, the success is directly proportional to the sedulous nature of their executives and not to their sleep-cycles.
Secondly, instead of directly jumping to the conclusion that if a business needs to prosper, it needs to hire those who need less than 6 hours of sleep per night. This is a very bizarre idea because every person who needs less than 6 hours of sleep need not be well-suited for the job. This criteria could cost the firm and lead to decline rather than witnessing success. For example, if a person who is well-suited for the job and a person who sleeps for less than 6 hours and is completely unaware of the job are the candidates, it is a viable option to select the former rather than the latter candidate.
Thirdly, the argument states that for a business to prosper, sleep-cycle is of cardinal importance. To strengthen this point, the argument must have mentioned examples about how the association between less sleep and success is not a mere co-incidence and establish the fact that sleep is the only impetus behind the success of a firm. This would bolster the argument's conclusion effectively.
Thus, the argument is flawed and to validate the argument, a few evidences would have to be provided which either undermine the argument or reinforce the author's point of view.
Essay evaluation report
----------------
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 385 350
No. of Characters: 1823 1500
No. of Different Words: 175 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.43 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.735 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.539 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 121 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 92 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.062 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.305 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.366 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.593 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.127 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 287, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: These
...ep need not be well-suited for the job. This criteria could cost the firm and lead t...
^^^^
Line 7, column 360, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...ccess of a firm. This would bolster the arguments conclusion effectively. Thus, the ar...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, hence, if, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, thus, well, for example, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1873.0 2260.96107784 83% => OK
No of words: 385.0 441.139720559 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.86493506494 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.4296068528 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.61292246441 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.47012987013 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 546.3 705.55239521 77% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => 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: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 54.1616504088 57.8364921388 94% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.0625 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0625 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 5.70786347227 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => 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: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222311782515 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.081006762539 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0640587443107 0.0701772020484 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116132317304 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0749156716541 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.