The following appeared in a memorandum from the regional manager of the Taste of Italy restaurant chain:
“After the first month of service, the new restaurant in the Flatplains Mall, which uses the Chipless brand of wine glasses,
has reported a far lower rate of breakage than our other restaurants that use the Elegance brand. Since servers and
bartenders at all of our restaurants frequently report that breakage is a result of the type of wineglass, and the customers at the Flatplains Mall restaurant seem to like the Chipless style of glasses, we should switch all of our restaurants to the
Chipless brand.”
The regional manager suggests that all the restaurants should switch to the chipless brand of wine glasses in order to lower the rate of breakage. This conclusion is derived without considering important information and a number of questions need to answered in order to decide if this recommendation would produce the expected results.
Firstly, the suggestion relies on the claim that lower rate of breakage has been observed in the new restaurant using chipless brand of wine glasses. The manager blindly trusts this claim without considering the possibility that the report could be false. Even if the report made was true, additional details regarding the index by which the breakage is lowered is not provided. Furthermore, it is probable that the reduced breakage was due to the extra care by which the servers handled the glass as the restaurant was new. Also, the glasses being new would have been able to withstand minute accidents. These plausible scenarios are entirely ignored by the manager while reaching the conclusion.
Secondly, the recommendation of the manager is based on assertion that breakage is a result of the type of wineglass. However, this might not necessarily be the case. Breakage of a wineglass could depend on additional factors such as the method employed in storing the wineglasses, the gentleness with which the glasses are handled, the care taken during washing of the glasses and the time of purchase of the glasses. Old glasses when stored in rough places and handled with less gentleness are likely to break more often. Such criterias need to be evaluated before jumping into the conclusion.
Thirdly, the suggestion to switch wineglasses also depends on the claim that customers at the new restaurant seems to like the chipless style of glasses. This claim is not backed by any solid evidence. Since only chipless glasses are used in the new restaurant, it is unsafe to assume that customers would prefer the said style to the elegant brand.
To sum up, the argument is rationally flawed and unconvincing. To strengthen the argument further, information regarding the customer preference, cause for breakage and the reports from the new restaurant needs to be evaluated. Only after considering all possible scenarios should the conclusion be drawn up.
- The following was a memorandum by the campaign manger for a state senate candidate:“Contributers to nearly every major blog in the state, both democratic and republican, agree that a proposal to increasetolls on the major highways going through our stat 83
- “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
- “An increased number of laws or rules, ironically leads to a diminished sense of morality and impoverished relationsamong people.” 62
- The following appeared in an internal memo circulated amongst the partners of a small design firm:“We, the four partners of Max Design, have made the company what it is. When we are hired by a client, it is our taste andstyle that the client is paying f 70
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government, industry, or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation, not competition. 58
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'firstly', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'regarding', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'third', 'thirdly', 'while', 'such as', 'to sum up']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.237623762376 0.25644967241 93% => OK
Verbs: 0.195544554455 0.15541462614 126% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0742574257426 0.0836205057962 89% => OK
Adverbs: 0.049504950495 0.0520304965353 95% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0049504950495 0.0272364105082 18% => Some pronouns wanted.
Prepositions: 0.126237623762 0.125424944231 101% => OK
Participles: 0.0742574257426 0.0416121511921 178% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.79542492454 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0371287128713 0.026700313972 139% => OK
Particles: 0.0049504950495 0.001811407834 273% => OK
Determiners: 0.14603960396 0.113004496875 129% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.019801980198 0.0255425247493 78% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00990099009901 0.0127820249294 77% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2303.0 2731.13054187 84% => OK
No of words: 372.0 446.07635468 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.19086021505 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.39173103935 4.57801047555 96% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.381720430108 0.378187486979 101% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.309139784946 0.287650121315 107% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.231182795699 0.208842608468 111% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.14247311828 0.135150697306 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79542492454 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 186.0 207.018472906 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.469332199767 107% => OK
Word variations: 53.4472097882 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 19.5789473684 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.561391334 57.7814097925 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.210526316 141.986410481 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.5789473684 23.2022227129 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.842105263158 0.724660767414 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 3.58251231527 0% => OK
Readability: 50.492925863 51.9672348444 97% => OK
Elegance: 1.75247524752 1.8405768891 95% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.631399851415 0.441005458295 143% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.109036520623 0.135418324435 81% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0750829717745 0.0829849096947 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.59613468146 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.193527311747 0.147661913831 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.281999492522 0.193483328276 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.172758917543 0.0970749176394 178% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.499336572595 0.42659136922 117% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0822573885021 0.0774707102158 106% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.465181405405 0.312017818177 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0897475553669 0.0698173142475 129% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.33743842365 84% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.87684729064 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 4.0 6.46551724138 62% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.82389162562 106% => OK
Total topic words: 12.0 14.657635468 82% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.