The following appeared in a memo from the new vice president of Sartorian, a company that manufactures men's clothing.
"Five years ago, at a time when we had difficulty obtaining reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, we discontinued production of our popular alpaca overcoat. Now that we have a new fabric supplier, we should resume production. Given the outcry from our customers when we discontinued this product and the fact that none of our competitors offers a comparable product, we can expect pent-up consumer demand for our alpaca coats. This demand and the overall increase in clothing prices will make Sartorian's alpaca overcoats more profitable than ever before."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author contends that the Sartorian's aplaca overcoats will be more profitable than ever before given the high demand, which is expected for this type of clothing, and the increased prices. He adds that, even thought the company had ceased the production of aplaca overcoats as a result of the absence of reliable supplies of high-quality wool fabric, it will now continue its production. While at first glance the statement might seem acceptable, further inspection of it reveals some logical errors that render it unconvincing as it stands.
The first assumption that the author makes is that the wool fabric quality will remain unaltered. Common sense informs me that the new supplier might provide the company with a different wood quality, which will not necessarily guarantee the high demand that used to exist for the overcoats five years ago. Therefore, the demand that the company is expecting is based on ill-supported evidence. I would be more convinced if the author cited information in the form of comparative data about the wool characteristics now and five years ago.
The author also presupposes that the market circumstances now and five years ago are identical. It strikes me that after a five year absence of this type of clothing in the markets, consumers will have have covered their needs with substitute products that are now fashionable. It should also be mentioned that a five year interval is an adequate period of time in which weather conditions might have changed to the degree of making the alpaca overcoat not as essential as before. Thus, there are high chances that the Sartorian's overcoat will not meet the profit levels that it used to be associated with.
Finally, the president's argument is based on the assumption that none of the company' s competitors will initiate a concurrent alpaca overcoat production. However, it would be naive to conclude that, since competitors are currently offering a similar product, they will not do so in the future. This statement should be further analysed since it could by itself disqualify the whole argument regarding the overcoats' profitability.
In conclusion, the vice president' s argument is not based on sound reasoning. He could make a better substantiated case if he included evidence and pieces of statistics about the projected demand and the competitors' plans.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 198, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: have
...clothing in the markets, consumers will have have covered their needs with substitute pro...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 203, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'had'.
Suggestion: had
...ing in the markets, consumers will have have covered their needs with substitute pro...
^^^^
Line 5, column 348, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...hat a five year interval is an adequate period of time in which weather conditions might have ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 14, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'presidents'' or 'president's'?
Suggestion: presidents'; president's
... to be associated with. Finally, the presidents argument is based on the assumption tha...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 406, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'overcoats'' or 'overcoat's'?
Suggestion: overcoats'; overcoat's
...ualify the whole argument regarding the overcoats profitability. In conclusion, the vi...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, regarding, so, therefore, thus, while, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 14.8657303371 34% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 19.0 11.3162921348 168% => OK
Pronoun: 38.0 33.0505617978 115% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 58.6224719101 65% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1978.0 2235.4752809 88% => OK
No of words: 383.0 442.535393258 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16449086162 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.42384287591 4.55969084622 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84280612662 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.522193211488 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 624.6 704.065955056 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 20.2370786517 79% => 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: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.9969034654 60.3974514979 68% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.625 118.986275619 104% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9375 23.4991977007 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.25 5.21951772744 120% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.143487750884 0.243740707755 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0500696768167 0.0831039109588 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0407905314212 0.0758088955206 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0785897774331 0.150359130593 52% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0479319485725 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.38706741573 108% => OK
difficult_words: 104.0 100.480337079 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.