The regional brand manager sent the following memo to the national brand manager for Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser.“We need to institute a huge publicity campaign for the launch of Sun-Beem’s improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including tel

Essay topics:

The regional brand manager sent the following memo to the national brand manager for Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser.

“We need to institute a huge publicity campaign for the launch of Sun-Beem’s improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including television, radio, internet, and magazine ads, potential new customers will not be aware of our product. And previous customers will not be aware that Sun-Beem’s new, non-carcinogenic formula is on the shelves. The best way to combat the negative publicity Sun-Beem’s old formula received is to fight fire with fire, by using the media’s insatiable interest in any new news about Sun-Beem to sell the new formula. This will erase the negative connotations in the minds of former customers, and will ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market.”

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

The regional brand manager claims that, the best way to fight negative remark they received for their old formula, is to use the medias's hunger for new news. This claim is supported by the evidence that, it was the same media which, made let the public to know the truth about how bad the old formula is. He believes that this time the media shall let the public about the new improved formula, which eventually gains publicity automatically. By looking at three assumptions the manager has failed to present, the argument shall be evaluated.

What if the media has changed their interests and more keen on other topics? There are a lot of things going around the globe, and the media always focuses on the most interesting topics. For instance, maybe while the officials at Sun-Beem are trying to gain the attention of the media, simultaneously, there was a natural disaster that occurred in the neighbouring country. Then the media shall definitely looking into the disaster and focus more on that. It is unpredictable what would happen in the future. There needs to be more evidence to support the claim, and prove why they are confident about the surety of the media publicising their product.

If there is another product introduced at the same time, which is far better than Sun-Beems new facial cleanser, then the people may tend to buy that product instead. For example, It is possible that the people already have a bad opinion on their old formula, and they might be ready to risk facing similar issues. Maybe the people are not confident anymore. If this is true, then the people will not be interested in trying the new product and so the media would lose interest in talking about tehir new product, since the people are not interested too. Then the argument is flawed and it needs more evidence to support the idea.

Even if the media showers interest on the new product and talks about it, it is possible that the people might not show any interest towards it, because maybe people have just stopped caring about cleansing products anymore. For instance, it is possible that due to the damage it caused to the skins of the previous users of their product, had led to people refrain from using any cleansing products. It is possible that it is too late before the media covers this topic, because by the time, maybe the people have changed their minds. If this occurs, then argument is weakened and is flawed.

Thus the statement is flawed, if strong evidence is not provided to counter-attack the above assumptions, which definitely weaken the argument. More evidence is needed to check the viability of the argument and prove its not flawed

Votes
Average: 5.9 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...rgument is weakened and is flawed. Thus the statement is flawed, if strong evid...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
if, look, may, so, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, talking about

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 28.8173652695 128% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2217.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 460.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 4.81956521739 5.12650576532 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.6311565067 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.42904117314 2.78398813304 87% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460869565217 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 690.3 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4824002703 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.571428571 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9047619048 23.324526521 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.71428571429 5.70786347227 65% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 8.20758483034 122% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143832468012 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0434795731866 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0466714896137 0.0701772020484 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0800774436563 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0570271730595 0.0628817314937 91% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.63 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 460 350
No. of Characters: 2148 1500
No. of Different Words: 205 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.631 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.67 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.35 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 143 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 101 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.905 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.69 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.524 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.542 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5