The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:
“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satellite technology has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. That company is Techcorporation. A consumer survey last year indicated that over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider and would want to switch to another provider if the industry were not a monopoly. Thus, the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television will prove to be highly profitable for those who invest now.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
The excerpt from the newsletter supports the idea to pursue the investors to invest more in the field of Techcorporation in order to get more profits for the fact that - it is the company that has developed satellite technology of its own and most people are not happy with the contemporary ones in service. Although the prompt shows logicl reasoning of some facts, however, it require much more crystal clarification of the logical flaws that are implicit within the assumptions of the advisors.
To begin with - one of the prime beliefs of the advisors is to think that the new staellite provider, Technocorporation - will be compatible enough to tackle the previously running ones. One of the base reasons for their firmness is their approval by FTA. But the fact that the advisors are missing is that - the other satellite providers are also being approved by FTA way before their ones. Only because they had developed satellite technology and has been given approval by FTA may not implicate that they will be taken ardently by the people. And if that is so then it might not be the correct way to encourage investors to invest in to the field of Techcorporation to earn better profits.
Secondly, it is assumed in the prompt that - the advisor is taking the support of the respondents for granted. What if it turned out later that is not the case. Fo instance - the people might not be much happy with their current satellite provider but what is the probability that they will be happier with the Techcorporation? It might later be found out that people are not actually liking their (Techcorporation) telecasts and services, rather wouyld like to switch back to the earlier ones. In that regards, it will be a total disaster for the investors who are willing to invest their money to Techcorporation.
Apart from that - is there any guarantee of the fact that there will be no competition among the satellite providers? What if it is found out soon after the advertisement that a new provider has also arrived and with better sources to convince the investors to earn better? The fact that in ten years there was no competition does not necessarily imply that there will not be any. Because of the development of technology new comapanies are evolving with brilliant ideas which are not only cost effective but also better suited for good upshot. If that is the case - then the investors might have to think twice before investing into the fund for Techcorporation.
So, looking at all the logical and critical remarks of the reasoning provided above, it can not be a wise saying to urge the investors to invest readily for Techcorporation because of lack of subjective evidences and various vulnerabilites of the future - that the investors might suffer if they are not wise enough to spot the vacuous assumptions. That is why much more security provided by answering the aforementioned questions are needed to come a conclusion of investing into the Techcorporation in return for good profit.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-26 | Ataraxia-m | 64 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | Technoblade | 58 | view |
| 2023-04-19 | keisham | 57 | view |
| 2023-04-15 | Manav27 | 62 | view |
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In dev 66
- Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species despite the expense to humans in effort time and financial well being Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts especially at a great cost in money an 66
- Educators should teach facts only after their students have studied the ideas trends and concepts that help explain those facts Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reason 66
- In business education and government it is always appropriate to remain skeptical of new leaders until those leaders show that they are worthy of trust Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim In devel 66
- Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is in fact the general welfare of all its people Write a response in 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 509 350
No. of Characters: 2443 1500
No. of Different Words: 222 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.75 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.8 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.85 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 86 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 61 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.789 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.274 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.737 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.317 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.533 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 379, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'requires'?
Suggestion: requires
...cl reasoning of some facts, however, it require much more crystal clarification of the ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, then, apart from, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 36.0 19.6327345309 183% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 13.6137724551 169% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 73.0 55.5748502994 131% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2495.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 509.0 441.139720559 115% => OK
Chars per words: 4.90176817289 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74984508646 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91819425235 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 224.0 204.123752495 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.440078585462 0.468620217663 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 789.3 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1511251994 57.8364921388 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.315789474 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.7894736842 23.324526521 115% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.15789473684 5.70786347227 90% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.18563076949 0.218282227539 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0605731178855 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0484399683905 0.0701772020484 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11540959267 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0298852369289 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.3799401198 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.44 12.5979740519 91% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.5 12.3882235529 149% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.