The argument claims that businesses can increase their profitability by advertising on a local radio station. The line of reasoning is that the Cumquat Café has placed advertisements on the local radio station this year and as a result the Café increased its business by 10 percent last year. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. In addition, the argument reveals examples of a leap of faith, ill-defined terminology and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the 10 percent increase in Cumquat’s business last year was because of the radio advertisements from this year. This statement is misleading and insufficient in two ways. On the one hand, the argument does not provide supporting data, that the 10 percent increase is only because of the radio advertisements. For example, the increase could also be because of other factors such as great customer service or the offering of high-quality food. On the other hand, the 10 percent business increase cannot result from the advertising on the local radio station, since Cumquat Café has started advertising this year and the 10 percent business increase was last year. Therefore, and while the argument does not show further data, the source of the 1 percent business increase remains unknown. The argument could have been much clearer if it had provided further supporting data for its claim.
Second, the argument presumes that the advertising success of the Cumquat Café is transferrable to any other business. This is again a very weak and unconvincing statement as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between Cumquat Café and other businesses. To illustrate, Cumquat Café could have unique characteristic, which lead to radio as the best marketing channel. Clearly, a manufacturing business would use a different marketing channel, since its customer base is usually not accessible by radio. Instead, it would probably use advertising in a trade journal.
Finally, the argument concludes that radio advertisement would make a business more profitable. From this statement again, it is not clear at all whether radio advertisement is really the holy grail. The argument misses several other factors, which influence the profitability of a business, such as the product margin, the capital expenditures or its interest payments. Furthermore, the conclusion suffers from the circumstance that it is not proven that Cumquat’s 10 percent business increase is only because of the radio advertisements and not because of unique Cumquat characteristics. Therefore, and without answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. In the absence of further information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
- This past winter 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest againstproposed cuts in funding for various state college programs The other 12 000 Waymarsh students evidently weren tso concerned about their 68
- The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper The owners of the Cumquat Caf evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location as can
- The Cumquat Cafe began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year s totals Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitabl 58
- Cafe 16
- Our research indicates that over the past six years no incidents of employee theft have been reported within 10 of the companies that have been our clients In analyzing the security practices of these 10 companies we have further learned that each of 70
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, really, second, so, therefore, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2624.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44398340249 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11344919376 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435684647303 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9855612673 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.96 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.28 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.56 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380347453334 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11768213018 0.0743258471296 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139168996134 0.0701772020484 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209811511904 0.128457276422 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123054992946 0.0628817314937 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, furthermore, hence, if, really, second, so, therefore, while, for example, in addition, in conclusion, such as, as a result, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2624.0 2260.96107784 116% => OK
No of words: 482.0 441.139720559 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.44398340249 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11344919376 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.435684647303 0.468620217663 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 806.4 705.55239521 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 20.0 8.76447105788 228% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 19.7664670659 126% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.9855612673 57.8364921388 76% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.96 119.503703932 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.28 23.324526521 83% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.56 5.70786347227 115% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 6.88822355289 189% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.380347453334 0.218282227539 174% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11768213018 0.0743258471296 158% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139168996134 0.0701772020484 198% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.209811511904 0.128457276422 163% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.123054992946 0.0628817314937 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.5979740519 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.12 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.