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
In a memo to the national brand manager of Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser, the regional brand manager concludes that a huge publicity campaign is necessary for the launch of the improved formula. The author comes to this conclusion based on the argument that media publicity will help in gaining new consumers and maintain the existing consumer base. However, the argument is rife with unwarranted assumptions and the author needs to provide evidence for three important assumptions in order to fully evaluate the validity of the recommendation.
First of all, the author assumes that the huge publicity campaign will erase the negative connotations of the old product. It is possible that the former customers are made aware of the carcinogenic formula that might have been present in the older product only due to the campaign. Perhaps, the former customers are infuriated because of the unsafe product sold to them earlier that they had no clue about, and now they want to sue the company for damages. If either of the above situations hold true, the recommendation does not hold water and negatively affects the company. However, if the author is able to provide evidence for the validity of the assumption, then the recommendation can be fruitful for the company.
A second reason that the argument is flawed is due to the assumption that publicity campaign will allow the company to gain new customers. It is possible that the public are already using a competitor's facial cleanser and have no motive to shift to the new Sun-Beem's facial cleanser. It is also possible that the new campaign makes the former customers to shift to another brand due to better features offered in that brand which wouldn't have been known if not for the publicity campaign. The argument could have been much clearer if the author is able to provide concrete evidence that how the publicity campaign will help in attracting new customer base. However, the argument as of now due to unsubstantiated assumption holds no water.
Finally, the author assumes that publicity campaign is the only way of making people aware about the new formula. Perhaps, if the company is offering introductory discounts then the people will get to know about the product on their own without the need of spending hefty amounts of money for the publicity campaign. It is also possible that the former customers recommend the new product to their friends and families due to its higher quality compared to the older version. If either of the above scenarios hold true, the argument holds no water. However, if the author is able to provide evidence that publicity campaign will necessarily make the people aware about the new product then the argument is significantly strengthened.
In conclusion, the argument makes a number of unstated assumptions that seriously undermine its validity. If the regional brand manager is able to provide proper evidence for the aforementioned assumptions then, the proposed recommendation of full fledged publicity campaign can be fully evaluated and adopted successfully.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 501 350
No. of Characters: 2522 1500
No. of Different Words: 194 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.731 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.034 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.739 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 155 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 107 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.05 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.584 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.373 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.557 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.108 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 723, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...dation can be fruitful for the company. A second reason that the argument is fla...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 189, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a competitor' or simply 'competitors'?
Suggestion: a competitor; competitors
...sible that the public are already using a competitors facial cleanser and have no motive to s...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 431, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...er features offered in that brand which wouldnt have been known if not for the publicit...
^^^^^^^
Line 13, column 735, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...argument is significantly strengthened. In conclusion, the argument makes a numb...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, second, so, then, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2586.0 2260.96107784 114% => OK
No of words: 500.0 441.139720559 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.172 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80286924419 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 201.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.402 0.468620217663 86% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 820.8 705.55239521 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
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: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 39.9280290022 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.3 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
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: 0.244143977812 0.218282227539 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.085837544964 0.0743258471296 115% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.136223881184 0.0701772020484 194% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163313804107 0.128457276422 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.103877601706 0.0628817314937 165% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.07 8.32208582834 97% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.