For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. But scientists have now devised a process for killing the bacteria. Once consumers are made aware of the increased safety of Gulf Coast oysters, they are likely to be willing to pay as much for Gulf Coast as for northeastern Atlantic Coast oysters, and greater profits for Gulf Coast oyster producers will follow.
The above argument is based on a number of unstated assumptions. Together with the lack of accurate data to corroborate the claims, the unwarranted assumptions render the argument incredulous and putative.
To begin with, the relation that the argument devises between the intent of the consumers to pay twice for the Atlantic Coast oysters, with the discovery of bacteria in a few Gulf Coast oysters is unjustified and wanting. There might be reasons other than just the one stated in the argument, that are likely to draw consumers to pay more to have them. For instance, the Atlantic Coast oysters maybe found to possess significantly greater nutritional value within the past five years. It is also likely that consumers are finding these oysters more appetizing than the Gulf Coast oysters and hence the propensity to pay more for them. The acute lack of data on these lines, makes the argument loose its credibility.
Secondly, consumers are less likely to consume the Gulf Coast oysters at all, leave alone buy them at cheaper rates, if the latter are affected with any harmful bacteria. People would be worried about the entire particular species of oysters even if only few of those are infected, and would avoid consuming them for good. The fact that consumers are still buying Gulf Coast oysters despite the fact that some of these might carry menacing pathogens, only validates the point that there are most likely other reasons that are making them prefer the Atlantic Coast oysters over the Gulf Coast. Besides, the argument fails to mention whether all the Californian consumers are willing to pay twice for the Atlantic oysters or whether it is only a handful of them who were considered. Hence, the information in the argument is qualified and needs deeper evaluation to ascertain the claims made.
Furthermore, the argument fails to mention whether the process devised by the scientists to kill the bacteria has been tried and found to be effective, or whether it might cause other side effects on the oysters. It is also not elucidated whether the Gulf Coast oysters after being treated, would be sae for human consumption. Without the validating the safety of these oysters upon the new treatment, the conclusion that the profits will rise after the said treatment appears impudent and feckless. Also, considering that the Atlantic Coast oysters are no different than Gulf Coast’s, if at all the latter become safer for consumption after being cured, the profits are unlikely to be higher for the Gulf Coast oysters since, both the types would be then equally consumable and people would be willing to pay equally for both instead of paying higher for one variety. Hence it is irrational to assume that the profits will be higher, without considering these factors.
In conclusion, the argument fails to appear cogent given the unstated assumptions and the lack of convincing data to substantiate the claims. Had the argument cited reports on whether the two types of oysters are same, or whether the survey conducted to note the consumer behavior in California is thorough and homogenous, the claims would have been bolstered to a great degree. Besides, it could have included economic comparisons and statistics to validate its point on the future profit analysis for the Gulf Coast oysters.
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by pastachievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statemen 79
- The following appeared in the summary of a study on headaches suffered by the residents of Mentia."Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin, a medicine used to treat headaches. Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates, 70
- 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 followin 83
- Educational institutions have a responsibility to dissuade students from pursuing fields of study in which they are unlikely to succeed.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and sup 50
- Governments should focus on solving the immediate problems of today rather than on trying to solve the anticipated problems of the future. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with therecommendation and explain 68
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 544, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...that consumers are finding these oysters more appetizing than the Gulf Coast oyst...
^^
Line 3, column 695, Rule ID: LOOSE_LOSE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'lose' (= miss, waste, suffer the loss etc.)?
Suggestion: lose
...data on these lines, makes the argument loose its credibility. Secondly, consumers ...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 568, Rule ID: RATHER_THEN[2]
Message: Did you mean 'different 'from''? 'Different than' is often considered colloquial style.
Suggestion: from
...Atlantic Coast oysters are no different than Gulf Coast’s, if at all the latter beco...
^^^^
Line 6, column 870, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...stead of paying higher for one variety. Hence it is irrational to assume that the pro...
^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'if', 'may', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.23063973064 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.185185185185 0.15541462614 119% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0824915824916 0.0836205057962 99% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0420875420875 0.0520304965353 81% => OK
Pronouns: 0.023569023569 0.0272364105082 87% => OK
Prepositions: 0.126262626263 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0572390572391 0.0416121511921 138% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.56696763118 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0387205387205 0.026700313972 145% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.12962962963 0.113004496875 115% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.020202020202 0.0255425247493 79% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00505050505051 0.0127820249294 40% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3330.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 548.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07664233577 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.357664233577 0.378187486979 95% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.288321167883 0.287650121315 100% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.186131386861 0.208842608468 89% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.111313868613 0.135150697306 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.56696763118 2.79052419416 92% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 207.018472906 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.452554744526 0.469332199767 96% => OK
Word variations: 53.2508227179 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 20.0 20.039408867 100% => OK
Sentence length: 27.4 23.2022227129 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 69.1025325151 57.7814097925 120% => OK
Chars per sentence: 166.5 141.986410481 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.4 23.2022227129 118% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.7 0.724660767414 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 56.2321167883 51.9672348444 108% => OK
Elegance: 1.65100671141 1.8405768891 90% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422628960116 0.441005458295 96% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.138011635685 0.135418324435 102% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0638441268678 0.0829849096947 77% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.644166105661 0.58762219726 110% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.126322652132 0.147661913831 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.200005368862 0.193483328276 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101926853908 0.0970749176394 105% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.599653639562 0.42659136922 141% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0821636241451 0.0774707102158 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.303608231113 0.312017818177 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.110702248843 0.0698173142475 159% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 11.0 5.36822660099 205% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 17.0 14.657635468 116% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.