The following appeared in a report to the board of a company that produces men’s sporting apparel:
“While national television advertising is increasingly expensive, it would cost roughly the same amount to reach the same
number of people by buying print advertising space in various magazines. Since launching our newest TV ad campaign,
sales have gone up significantly, but not in those markets which are served only by print ads. We should, therefore, increase
our investment in TV ads and should not renew our magazine contracts once they are up.”
The recommendation provided is based on questionable arguments and faulty line of reasoning which renders it unconvincing. The author remains oblivious to certain facts and additional information needs to be gathered before taking drastic measures.
Firstly, the author relies on the assumption that the expenditure for advertising in national television is roughly the same as that required for advertising in various magazine. However, details on exact figures for these expenses are not revealed. Is the difference in expense affordable by the company? Can the fact that both types of advertisement gather the same number of people be trusted? Do these advertisements focus on different crowds or do they pull in the same sector of people? Such questions need to be answered to strengthen the argument at hand.
Secondly, the author mentions that the sales have elevated through TV ads but has not seen any escalation in markets served by only print ads. This premise on which the author bases his conclusion is vague. It is possible the hike was because the TV advertisement addressed markets that were not considered by print ads. The market served by the print ads might already be pulling in all possible sales which might have resulted in the consistent sale pattern. These avenues of reasoning are ignored by the author while coming up with the proposal.
Thirdly, the author suggests that magazine contracts should not be renewed and investment in TV ads need to be increased. However, the downside of cancelling the magazine contracts are not explored. Are the magazine advertisements responsible for major sales? Could the cancellation mean a drastic decline in customers? Can this decline be moderated by an increase in sales through TV advertisements? Will the increase in investment for TV ads provide a proportional increase in sales? The author disregards these questions whose answer determines the soundness of the action that has been suggested.
To sum up, the arguments of the author are unsubstantiated and does not provide enough support to the conclusion it draws up. Hence, to further strengthen this argument, the author needs to consider additional information and provide strong evidences to reach a justifiable conclusion.
- The following appeared in an email written by the head of market research division to the president of a major candy company:“In the last four years the gross sales in the candy market have remained static, but ice cream, another confectionaryproduct, h 70
- “The Smith Corporation should not be permitted to develop the land that is now part of the Youngtown Wildlife Preserve. This sanctuary is essential to the survival of the 300 bird species that live in our area. Although only a small percentage of the la 62
- One should not expect respect for disregarding the opinions of others Only when every point of view is taken into consideration should people take action in the world 75
- The following is taken from a memo from the advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company.“According to a recent report from our marketing department, during the past year, fewer people attended Super Screen-produced movies than in a 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Movies Galore, a chain of video rental stores."In order to reverse the recent decline in our profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Movies Galore's ten video rental stores. Since we are famou 83
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'while', 'in fact', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.266149870801 0.25644967241 104% => OK
Verbs: 0.196382428941 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0697674418605 0.0836205057962 83% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0387596899225 0.0520304965353 74% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0129198966408 0.0272364105082 47% => OK
Prepositions: 0.124031007752 0.125424944231 99% => OK
Participles: 0.0671834625323 0.0416121511921 161% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.03154746517 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0258397932817 0.026700313972 97% => OK
Particles: 0.0077519379845 0.001811407834 428% => OK
Determiners: 0.129198966408 0.113004496875 114% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0180878552972 0.0255425247493 71% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.015503875969 0.0127820249294 121% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2252.0 2731.13054187 82% => OK
No of words: 357.0 446.07635468 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.3081232493 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.417366946779 0.378187486979 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.330532212885 0.287650121315 115% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.249299719888 0.208842608468 119% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.170868347339 0.135150697306 126% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.03154746517 2.79052419416 109% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 207.018472906 91% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526610644258 0.469332199767 112% => OK
Word variations: 56.760150874 52.1807786196 109% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 16.2272727273 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.9504074392 57.7814097925 59% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.363636364 141.986410481 72% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.2272727273 23.2022227129 70% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.681818181818 0.724660767414 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 49.2804940158 51.9672348444 95% => OK
Elegance: 1.84375 1.8405768891 100% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.470536209507 0.441005458295 107% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.105651566149 0.135418324435 78% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0951944198606 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.536997956392 0.58762219726 91% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.143535740237 0.147661913831 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.185107140424 0.193483328276 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0881030637732 0.0970749176394 91% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.358796230424 0.42659136922 84% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.109009780022 0.0774707102158 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.310275160477 0.312017818177 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0810412099423 0.0698173142475 116% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.33743842365 96% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.87684729064 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.82512315271 166% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.82389162562 142% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 66.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4 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: This is not the final score. 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.