The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals.
"One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies. Although the companies producing the top brands have since tried to compete with us by lowering their prices and although several plan to introduce their own budget brands, not once have we needed to raise our prices to continue making a profit. Given our success in selling cereal, we recommend that Bargain Brand now expand its business and begin marketing other low-priced food products as quickly as possible."
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 memo, the author recommends that Bargain Brand expand its business by producing and selling other food products at a cheap price. The author has come to this conclusion based on the fact that Bargain Brand breakfast cereal which was sold at a low price attracted many customers away from other top-selling companies. However, before this argument can be properly evaluated, three pieces of evidence must be collected and analyzed.
First of all, it is crucial to ascertain if the customers would also enjoy other food products produced by Bargain Brand. The author prematurely assumes that since the customers enjoyed the first product by Bargain Brand which is the breakfast cereal, they would also relish other food products by the Bargain. However, this might not be the case. Maybe, the customers already have a preferred company for other food products which sells at a low price also. More so, there is no statistics or pre-survey that shows that the customers would favour the introduction of the new products. If the above is verifiable, then the deduction drawn in the original argument is significantly weakened.
Secondly, it is essential to establish if the customers would continue to buy the breakfast cereal even after one year for the brand to still maintain its profit margin. It is possible that after one year, the customers would favour buying from another new company which also sells at a lower price. Perhaps, even if no new company comes in, the price of producing the breakfast cereal might increase which subsequently would affect the price for the cereal to be sold. If Bargain decided not to increase the price at which the cereal is sold, they could run at a loss or if they do decide to do so, this would make them lose customers, thus, a decrease in their profit margin. If one of them has credit, then the argument does not hold water.
Lastly, it is important to determine if other top-selling cereal brands have not decided to sell their cereal products as the same measurement as Bargain Brand at the same low price. The author impetuously posits that the customer preferred Bargain Brand only because of its low price. Nevertheless, this might not be the case. Possibly, other top-selling cereal brands could have greater taste and quality but had a smaller quantity. They could decide to sell their cereals as the same quantity and price that Bargain Brand does without comprising their quality. Haply, the other top-selling brands could have done a customer survey on how to improve better and make the customers continue to patronise them during the first year of Bargain brand success. They could decide to implement the feedback gotten from this survey the following year and get back their customers. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn in the argument is remarkably weakened.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to provide the three pieces of evidence stated above and perhaps conduct a systematic research study then it will be possible to determine whether Bargain brand expand its business by producing and selling other food products at a low rate.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-10 | sam 27 | 73 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | Fahim Shahriar Khan | 73 | view |
| 2023-07-10 | Jonginn | 66 | view |
| 2023-02-21 | HSNDEK | 58 | view |
| 2022-11-11 | raghavchauhan619 | 69 | view |
- The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals One year ago we introduced our first product Bargain Brand breakfast cereal Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top selling cereal companies Alth 78
- A recent sales study indicates that consumption of seafood dishes in Bay City restaurants has increased by 30 percent during the past five years Yet there are no currently operating city restaurants whose specialty is seafood Moreover the majority of fami 58
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 543 350
No. of Characters: 2649 1500
No. of Different Words: 214 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.827 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.878 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.501 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 58 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.625 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.187 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.792 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.326 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.118 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 454, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...ood products which sells at a low price also. More so, there is no statistics or pre...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, lastly, may, nevertheless, second, secondly, so, still, then, thus, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2715.0 2260.96107784 120% => OK
No of words: 543.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.0 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82725184711 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.5624442014 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.408839779006 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 824.4 705.55239521 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.5485208323 57.8364921388 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.125 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.625 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.25 5.70786347227 92% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 8.20758483034 171% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.376409784318 0.218282227539 172% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.120602335281 0.0743258471296 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.100630176826 0.0701772020484 143% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.229233293065 0.128457276422 178% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0835088742391 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.02 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.61 8.32208582834 91% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.