The following appeared as part of a campaign to sell advertising time on a local radio station to local businesses:
“The Cumquat Café began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year’s totals. Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitable.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The arguer concludes that radio advertising is a successful tool used by businesses to promote their products and services. The argument is based on the claim: 1) since the Cumquat Caffee began advertising on this local radio, their business has increased its totals by 10 percent more than last year. Stated this way, the argument is vague and unconvincing. It has poor reasoning and fails to mention several factors.
In the first place, the arguer claims that by using the radio advertisement, the business was able to thrive even more in the market. This argument is a stretch and doesn’t provide a clear idea. There are several reasons, why the business may have increased its profit. It is not only linked with their radio advertisement. Take, for example, other factors such as high prices of other competitors, which don’t really offer good quality at all. Thus, making people prefer the coffee of Cumquat. If the argument stated some facts and reasons, it would have been much clearer.
And it could be that marketed products gain more costumers, but this process can also be done through television promotions, campaigns or even through social media marketing. The technology nowadays has created very attractive advertisements ads for all ages. Again, the argument remains problematic and doesn’t create a strong logical idea.
Finally, the argument claims that the business increased by 10 percent over last year’s totals. This claim doesn’t show how much the total revenue and total sales were, in order to be more convincing. Real numbers are not provided to support such a claim.
In conclusion, the argument remains ill-defined and open to debate. It is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. The argument omits many factors, such as those mentioned above, that must be addressed in order to make a proper conclusion.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 308 350
No. of Characters: 1504 1500
No. of Different Words: 181 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.189 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.561 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 105 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 79 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 49 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.4 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.461 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.45 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.28 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.453 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.02 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, really, so, thus, for example, in conclusion, such as, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 28.0 55.5748502994 50% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1573.0 2260.96107784 70% => OK
No of words: 304.0 441.139720559 69% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.17434210526 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.17559525986 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.68677114384 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 184.0 204.123752495 90% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.605263157895 0.468620217663 129% => OK
syllable_count: 472.5 705.55239521 67% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 37.8186131422 57.8364921388 65% => OK
Chars per sentence: 78.65 119.503703932 66% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.2 23.324526521 65% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.45 5.70786347227 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
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: 0.219687186348 0.218282227539 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0601651038774 0.0743258471296 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0917474709846 0.0701772020484 131% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.117362717439 0.128457276422 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.108833416038 0.0628817314937 173% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.5 14.3799401198 73% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 56.25 48.3550499002 116% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.1 12.197005988 75% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.11 12.5979740519 96% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 80.0 98.500998004 81% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.