The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake House
restaurants.
"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little impact on our customers.In fact, only about 2 percent of customers have complained, indicating that an average of 98 people out of 100 are happy with the change. Furthermore, many servers have reported that a number of customers who ask for butter do not complain when they are given margarine instead. Clearly, either these customers do not distinguish butter from margarine or they use the term 'butter' to refer to either butter or margarine."
Write a response in which you discuss one or more alternative explanations that could rival the proposed explanation and explain how your explanation(s) can plausibly account for the facts presented in the argument.
The author argues that only a modicum of customers has noticed that butter has been replaced by margarine. The author’s argument seems rational at first sight; however, after fastidiously analyzing its evidence, I became doubtful about the conclusion.
First, the author’s argument is based on unfounded ground. In other words, the statics used as a evidence in the argument does not support the conclusion. For instance, the author said only 2 percent of customers has complained about the replacement, while never mentioned the exact number of customers. As a result, I cannot conclude that the number of customers who dissatisfied with the replacement was small or big. If the number of complaining customers was small in reality, it is still uncertain that only small number of customers realized the replacement in real. It is possible that even realized and unsatisfied with the result, some customers did not complain about the replacement because of several, personal reason such as intrinsic character, being too shy to speak out about their opinion. So, it is irrational to conclude that only a small amount of people know the difference between butter and margarine and rest of customers were happy with the change.
Secondly, the research on which the argument primarily stressed out as evidence is unconvincing. Since the change has been made recently, the result is not fully believable. The result of the research can be periodic or just be aberrant. To achieve more credence about the result, the research or survey should be taken with longer period of time, validating the consistency of the result.
Lastly, since the area that replacement has been made is restricted to only a part of United States, it is too hesitate to make a sole conclusion that overall customers does not distinguish the difference of butter and margarine. To briefly say, the author considers misrepresentatives when make the general conclusion. To make the argument more reasonable, the replacement should be made across the country, not only throughout the southwestern United States.
In sum, for above-mentioned reasons, the author’s argument is not fully understandable. To bolster the argument, the author should provide more specific and concrete evidence that covers all the loopholes.
- It is more harmful to compromise one’s own beliefs than adhere to them. 54
- The following memorandum is from the business manager of Happy Pancake Houserestaurants."Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States. This change, however, has had little imp 50
- Should governments provide free university education to poor students who are admitted university? 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 101, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...nd. In other words, the statics used as a evidence in the argument does not suppo...
^
Line 5, column 333, Rule ID: PERIOD_OF_TIME[1]
Message: Use simply 'period'.
Suggestion: period
...h or survey should be taken with longer period of time, validating the consistency of the resu...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 108, Rule ID: TOO_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'to hesitate'?
Suggestion: to hesitate
... to only a part of United States, it is too hesitate to make a sole conclusion that overall ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 112, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'hesitated'.
Suggestion: hesitated
...only a part of United States, it is too hesitate to make a sole conclusion that overall ...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
briefly, but, first, however, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, still, while, for instance, such as, as a result, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1952.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 364.0 441.139720559 83% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.36263736264 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.36792674256 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.04467500535 2.78398813304 109% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.5 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 610.2 705.55239521 86% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0659269476 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.444444444 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2222222222 23.324526521 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.11111111111 5.70786347227 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => 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: 0.112873063597 0.218282227539 52% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0382037034075 0.0743258471296 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0438686810776 0.0701772020484 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.063790905211 0.128457276422 50% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0413350448958 0.0628817314937 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.