The news article urges investors to invest in Techcorporation. In support of this argument, the article states the facts that techcorporation is the first company who has developed a satellite being approved by FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. The article is inherently flawed and its flaws will be discussed below.
Firstly the writer of the article states that the company is the first company in 10 years to be approved by FTA. This information does not necessarily to tell that the company has potential. My be the market is so down in satellite technology that no company has tried to invest in the satellite business. In this case, suggesting people invest in Techcorporation's would be counterproductive and risky. More information about the current state of the industry would help make an informed decision.
Secondly, information about the survey seems at best dubious. The results of the survey at first seem sound and in accord with the author's conclusion. There is no particular information about the way the survey was conducted, the sample space of the survey, the geographical area covered by the survey. Without this particular information, the survey seems insufficient to pursue me to invest in the company.
Thirdly even if we consider that the result of the survey is sound and can be relied upon there is no guarantee that these many people change thier television operator. Even if they did, they would choose Techcorporation as their new television operator.
Finally, stock investment is very risky and volatile. There are many variables involved in the stock market. Plenty of these variables are not discussed in the article. More detailed information about the survey current market condition will help make the argument strong. Insum the article fails to convince me to buy the stock of television.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 193, Rule ID: MY_BE[1]
Message: Did you mean 'may be' or 'might be'?
Suggestion: May be; Might be
...to tell that the company has potential. My be the market is so down in satellite tech...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 132, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...first seem sound and in accord with the authors conclusion. There is no particular info...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 345, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ince me to buy the stock of television.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, third, thirdly
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1560.0 2260.96107784 69% => OK
No of words: 300.0 441.139720559 68% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.16179145029 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96317397397 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 150.0 204.123752495 73% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 489.6 705.55239521 69% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 38.9162037476 57.8364921388 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 82.1052631579 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.7894736842 23.324526521 68% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.42105263158 5.70786347227 60% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.222373010439 0.218282227539 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0694245166905 0.0743258471296 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0770805924452 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119463545312 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.089116025351 0.0628817314937 142% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.0 14.3799401198 76% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.58 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.38 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 76.0 98.500998004 77% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.