While the brand manger's strategy may seem rational and thorough, as a way to ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market, his argument does not provide enough evidence and lacks quantitative data to back its claim. In order to fully evaluate this argument, we need to have a significant amount of additional evidence. The argument could end up being much weaker than it seems, or actually, be quite valid. In order to make that determination, we need to know more, then analyze what we learn.
To begin with, how can we evaluate that the new formula is actually better than the previous formula? The argument lacks any proof which suggests that the new formula is significantly improved and also provides better results than the previous one. The company should have corroborated this claim with some statistics, by performing a trial on a focus group having a diverse group of people. They could have even published the results of the trial as evidence. This would have strengthened this argument and also entice new customers to buy their facial cleanser.
Moreover, along the lines of the previous assumption, the argument also assumes that the advertisements that the company publishes through various mediums will entice new customers. How can they be sure that the people will be lured by their ads? The argument could have provided some evidence regarding what kind of strategy they will adopt in their advertisements that they will publicize to lure new customers. This would have reinforced the author’s assertion regarding the positive effect of media blitz. To make their ads more appealing, they can advertise their product as to be effective in fighting acne, since pimples are a major issue among teenagers these days.
Additionally, even though the media blitz will be reaching most of the previous customers ,the company cannot be certain that being cognizant of the new formula based facial cleanser, these previous customers will buy their product because we are not sure as to why exactly did they leave the product in the first place. The argument assumes the old formula as the only as to why they lost their customers. Perhaps rather than ineffective older formula, the previous customers recanted the use of facial cleanser because of its increased cost. The argument needs to provide some evidence elucidating the reasons behind why the customers stopped using their product, plausibly in the form of the result of a survey. The survey will help them to identify what exactly they need to focus on to regain the trust of their lost customers For example if increased cost was the reason the company can launch their product at some discounted price initially and advertise this discount. If the people find their product effective, perhaps they will be ready to pay more, later on, for the increased quality.
Hence, looking at the flaws with the manger's memo, we conclude that we need a lot more evidence to accurately assess if Sun-beem can expect to increase the sales of their new product. The argument requires more corroboration in the form of surveys, focus groups and quantitative data. This will make the claim more justified and also increase the likelihood of Sun-beem, once again becoming the best-selling facial cleanser on the market
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 90, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... reaching most of the previous customers ,the company cannot be certain that being...
^^
Line 9, column 444, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...st-selling facial cleanser on the market
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['actually', 'also', 'first', 'hence', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'as to', 'for example', 'kind of', 'to begin with', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.215231788079 0.25644967241 84% => OK
Verbs: 0.155629139073 0.15541462614 100% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0943708609272 0.0836205057962 113% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0562913907285 0.0520304965353 108% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0546357615894 0.0272364105082 201% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.110927152318 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0347682119205 0.0416121511921 84% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.64855400118 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0331125827815 0.026700313972 124% => OK
Particles: 0.00165562913907 0.001811407834 91% => OK
Determiners: 0.12582781457 0.113004496875 111% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0364238410596 0.0255425247493 143% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0149006622517 0.0127820249294 117% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3335.0 2731.13054187 122% => OK
No of words: 548.0 446.07635468 123% => OK
Chars per words: 6.08576642336 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83832613839 4.57801047555 106% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.348540145985 0.378187486979 92% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.279197080292 0.287650121315 97% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.20802919708 0.208842608468 100% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.116788321168 0.135150697306 86% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64855400118 2.79052419416 95% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 207.018472906 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.461678832117 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 54.5477437299 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.8260869565 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.3920529563 57.7814097925 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.0 141.986410481 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8260869565 23.2022227129 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.739130434783 0.724660767414 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 51.7457949857 51.9672348444 100% => OK
Elegance: 1.35403726708 1.8405768891 74% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.430395231919 0.441005458295 98% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.146671513146 0.135418324435 108% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0952284299112 0.0829849096947 115% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.572608730806 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.131123268054 0.147661913831 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.183433900352 0.193483328276 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0851374464538 0.0970749176394 88% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.501304432776 0.42659136922 118% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.111952118559 0.0774707102158 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.305268522576 0.312017818177 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.06520276854 0.0698173142475 93% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.33743842365 144% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.87684729064 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 12.0 6.46551724138 186% => OK
Negative topic words: 9.0 5.36822660099 168% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 22.0 14.657635468 150% => OK
---------------------
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 to cover all aspects.