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.
In the passage, the author mentions about the recovery of wool fabric supply and predicts further profitability of Sartorian after such recovery. Quite convincing though such recommendation appears at first glance, the author's recommendation might be implausible due to several unsubstantiated assumptions which, if prove unwarranted, will seriously challenge the author's recommendation.
To start off, the author's recommendation heavily relies on the assumption that the new supplier could provide sustainable and qualified wool fabric to Satorian. Based on the assumption, he suggests that Sartorian could of no doubt recover to previous production level. However, such assumption might be untenable, because it is possible that new supplier cannot get stable provision of raw materials as a result of its inferior supply chain of raw materials. Nor do we know whether such provision could live up to the quality compared with previous supplier. Moreover, we also have no idea about how Sartorian verify all of such new supplier. If it turns out that this supplier lacks of continual raw material providing, or its quality is much worse than before, or there existed severe issues in Sartorian's verification process, his/her aforementioned reasoning will be weakened.
Furthermore, by claiming that customers' dissatisfaction and no competitors in the market, the author stays optimistic about bright future of alpaca coats' success. However, we cannot decide whether such assumption is reasonable. It is possible that their previous customers had felt great disappointment and therefore permanently left. Also, it is of equal probability that competitors had already been able to produce more premium products, so they didn't care about offering a comparable product any more. Moreover, customers might vary their viewpoints about alpaca overcoat and turn to a more lightweight coat. If any of the probabilities is true, we are inclined to believe that Sartorian might not meet with soaring consumer demand, even if they are able to reproduce with this product.
Last but not least, while all of the aforementioned assumptions prove valid, the author's recommendation may still be unnecessary due to the assumption regarding the efficiency of profitability after price increase of Sartorian's alpaca overcoats. Arguing that more financial gains can be get by price adjustment, the author seems too optimistic. It is unreasonable to assume that customers will keep indifferent with price increase, especially those with financial difficulties. Also, the author hastily comes to the conclusion that the overall revenue of alpaca overcoats can overshadow its cost, but doesn't discuss whether the whole production might lead to even higher cost that cannot be remedied by its accompanying financial gain. If customers eschew with new product because of its higher price, or new production process will make it impossible to make profit any more, then the profitability of Satorian's alpaca overcoats is still questionable.
In summary, whether we should implement the author's recommendation heavily hinges on the validity of the aforementioned assumptions. If those assumptions turn out groundless, the author's recommendation could become little more than his/her wishful thinking and Startorian may need a reconsideration about their plan.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 21 15
No. of Words: 506 350
No. of Characters: 2784 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.743 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.502 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.148 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 169 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 132 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 93 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.095 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.651 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.762 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.312 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.525 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.156 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 220, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...mmendation appears at first glance, the authors recommendation might be implausible due...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 313, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...veral unsubstantiated assumptions which, if prove unwarranted, will seriously cha...
^^
Line 1, column 366, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...warranted, will seriously challenge the authors recommendation. To start off, the au...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 19, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rs recommendation. To start off, the authors recommendation heavily relies on the as...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 31, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'customers'' or 'customer's'?
Suggestion: customers'; customer's
...kened. Furthermore, by claiming that customers dissatisfaction and no competitors in t...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 450, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: didn't
... produce more premium products, so they didnt care about offering a comparable produc...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 27, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...s product. Last but not least, while all of the aforementioned assumptions prove valid,...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 82, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ementioned assumptions prove valid, the authors recommendation may still be unnecessary...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 602, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... overcoats can overshadow its cost, but doesnt discuss whether the whole production mi...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 45, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ummary, whether we should implement the authors recommendation heavily hinges on the va...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 180, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...se assumptions turn out groundless, the authors recommendation could become little more...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 305, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...rtorian may need a reconsideration about their plan.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, still, then, therefore, while, in summary, no doubt, such as, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 42.0 28.8173652695 146% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2846.0 2260.96107784 126% => OK
No of words: 502.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.66932270916 5.12650576532 111% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.7334296765 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19379308671 2.78398813304 115% => OK
Unique words: 261.0 204.123752495 128% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.519920318725 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 878.4 705.55239521 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 5.0 1.67365269461 299% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5949125539 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.523809524 119.503703932 113% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.9047619048 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0 5.70786347227 123% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 12.0 5.25449101796 228% => Less language errors wanted.
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118149693141 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0408621350368 0.0743258471296 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0323460664183 0.0701772020484 46% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0677998392494 0.128457276422 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0320713303917 0.0628817314937 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.3799401198 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.3550499002 82% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.9 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.06 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 136.0 98.500998004 138% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.