The argument states that a new satellite provider is all set to enter a currently monopolistic market and emphasises that it is a wise choice to invest in the venture. The claim of profitability is based on the fact that no other provider has obtained the FTA approval for the past ten years. However, before this advice can be properly evaluated, three questions must be answered.
First of all, what was the novel change that helped Techcorporation attain the FTA approval? In other words, the fact that this company is the first one in a whopping course of ten years to obtain this approval, raises a few questions about what the inherent difference in this company is. It is possible that the bases of approval is not completely comprehensive and all-inclusive, and this can only prove to have hindrances upon entering the market. Further, there is a possibility that this claim is used as a facade to entice new customers, and since they are already having grievances about the current provider, they are highly unlikely to cross- question its authenticity. In this case, the company would perish as soon as there would be a buzzing word, asking for solid proof. Techcorporation's image could be tarnished, hence taking their profitability for a toss.
Secondly, will the company be profitable by providing the price point that the customers expect? To enter a strong monopolistic market that has been unchallegened since the past ten years is not an easy task. Techcorporation must not only match the current price of services, but instead be able to undercut them in order to attract customers. Despite the fact that customers are currently not satisfied, price plays a huge factor in their decision of switching. In the case that Techcorporation proposes a sightly higher price to ensure their profits, the typical consumer would rather be slightly dissatisfied than pay more, isn't it? Techcorporation's assumption of their profitability would not hold any water.
Lastly, will the cutomers make a switch if the current provider improves on all its current drawbacks? Perhaps it is very much possible, that the entry of Techcorporation startles the current provider, who understands that it must improve in order to retain customers. In the case that all the customer grievances are appropriately addressed, it is highly unlikely that the customer will make a shift out of their trustworthy comfort zone after ten long years. It is also possible for the monopoly to provide a slighly lower price for retention, since an established long-standing company like that can afford to do so. If either of these scenarios has merit, the conclusion drawn by the Techcorporation is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its reliance o several unwarranted assumptions. If Techcorporation is able to answer the above-mentioned questions and offer more evidence (perhaps in terms of viable proce structures that can be proposed), then it will be possible to completely evaluate the reasonability of this suggestion to invest in Techcorporation.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 14 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2545 1500
No. of Different Words: 246 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.05 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.115 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 172 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 134 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 106 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.344 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.5 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.275 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.275 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 628, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...be slightly dissatisfied than pay more, isnt it? Techcorporations assumption of thei...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, then, in conclusion, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 46.0 28.8173652695 160% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2601.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17097415507 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.17417028578 2.78398813304 114% => OK
Unique words: 254.0 204.123752495 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504970178926 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 824.4 705.55239521 117% => 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: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.0687660498 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.227272727 119.503703932 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8636363636 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.31818181818 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 8.20758483034 207% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.271301069005 0.218282227539 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0736741335446 0.0743258471296 99% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0510760339276 0.0701772020484 73% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.147702302758 0.128457276422 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0750021192065 0.0628817314937 119% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.56 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.