Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
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"Recently, butter has been replaced by margarine in Happy Pancake House restaurants throughout the southwestern United States.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."
The above argument appears fallible as it is based on a number of unwarranted assumptions, which if proved otherwise, will seriously undermine the claims made. Further, the dearth of credible data to corroborate the stated reasons, renders the argument suspect.
To begin with, the manager of Happy Pancake House restaurants does not elucidate by what amount has the butter been replaced by margarine. If the replacement is negligibly small, then it might be far from noticeable by the customers. Hence, in this case the assumption that 98 out of 100 are ‘happy’ with the change does not hold good, since people are finding little or no difference in the items whatsoever. Conversely, it is likely that people are noting a slight difference in taste, but are not complaining because of a possible offset in that case, say, a reduction in the costs for instance. Here too, it is not because the customers are happy, but because the change in taste has been compensated by the cost/tax reduction, or through free takeaways, etc. Since the manager fails to shed light on these other possibilities, or to disprove such occurrences, the assumption that the change is making the customers happy stands inconclusive.
Furthermore, the manager fails to elaborate if the number of customers has been affected at all. The assumption is that, because only 2% of the people are complaining, 98% must be happy with the change. However, the manager does not take into account whether the restaurants have been infact, loosing customers. It is not lucid in the argument, whether the same number of people are visiting the restaurants after the change. In case that number is diminishing, it is implicit that people are not ‘happy’ with the change. Because percentages can be ambiguous, one cannot be sure unless the exact figures of customers are provided.
Lastly, the manager assumes that because ‘a number of’ customers do not complain when given margarine instead of butter, they must either be unable to differentiate between the two, or use the same term for both. However, the manager fails to illustrate the condition for the customers who do complain against this. It is possible that the number of customers who complain, far exceeds the number that does not. Additionaly, the customers might simply not complain out of propriety, or their own integrity. They might simply wish to avoid any uncomfortable situations with the staff that might arise if they complain. That does not imply they are confused between the two commodities. Hence, if situations like these are verified through some evidence, the argument will substantially loose credibility.
In essence, the manager overlooks certain key factors that might have caused the perceived accommodation of margarine instead of butter, by the customers of Happy Pancake House restaurants. The manager fails to elucidate whether the replacement of butter with margarine, is substantial enough to be noticeable by the consumers. The manager also appears quite equivocal regarding the percentages of customers mentioned in the argument. Because percentages do not reveal the full picture, the exact numbers of the customers still visiting the restaurants after the replacement, could have been the actual indicator of the acceptance level of margarine. Further, the assumption that lesser complains imply more acceptance of margarine is fallacious in several ways. In short, had the argument provided enough evidence to nullify these doubts, the claims made by the manager would have appeared more cogent.
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the owner of Armchair Video, a chain of video rental stores."Because of declining profits, we must reduce operating expenses at Armchair Video's ten video rental stores. Raising prices is not a good option, sinc 83
- For the past five years, consumers in California have been willing to pay twice as much for oysters from the northeastern Atlantic Coast as for Gulf Coast oysters. This trend began shortly after harmful bacteria were found in a few raw Gulf Coast oysters. 83
- If you were am employer, which kind of worker would you prefer to hire: an inexperienced worker at a lower salary or an experienced worker at a higher salary? Use specific reasons and details to support your answer. 78
- The widespread use of the internet has given people access to information on a level never experienced before. How does this increase in the availability of information influence life in today's world? 86
- Some people claim that you can tell whether a nation is great by looking at the achievements of its rulers artists or scientists Others argue that the surest indicator of a great nation is in fact the general welfare of its entire people Write a response 97
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 98, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...umber of unwarranted assumptions, which if proved otherwise, will seriously underm...
^^
Line 3, column 512, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...erence in taste, but are not complaining because of a possible offset in that cas...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'conversely', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'lastly', 'look', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'then', 'for instance', 'in short', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.211838006231 0.25644967241 83% => OK
Verbs: 0.179127725857 0.15541462614 115% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0763239875389 0.0836205057962 91% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0607476635514 0.0520304965353 117% => OK
Pronouns: 0.018691588785 0.0272364105082 69% => OK
Prepositions: 0.143302180685 0.125424944231 114% => OK
Participles: 0.0482866043614 0.0416121511921 116% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.87970224783 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0171339563863 0.026700313972 64% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.126168224299 0.113004496875 112% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0202492211838 0.0255425247493 79% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0140186915888 0.0127820249294 110% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3580.0 2731.13054187 131% => OK
No of words: 569.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.29173989455 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.88402711743 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.398945518453 0.378187486979 105% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.314586994728 0.287650121315 109% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.223198594025 0.208842608468 107% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.168717047452 0.135150697306 125% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87970224783 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 207.018472906 127% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460456942004 0.469332199767 98% => OK
Word variations: 55.003894565 52.1807786196 105% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.039408867 135% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0740740741 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3493999221 57.7814097925 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.592592593 141.986410481 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0740740741 23.2022227129 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.592592592593 0.724660767414 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 3.58251231527 56% => OK
Readability: 52.5327735468 51.9672348444 101% => OK
Elegance: 1.56024096386 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.572789799769 0.441005458295 130% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.151848395599 0.135418324435 112% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0918466968867 0.0829849096947 111% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.594155417254 0.58762219726 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.122847790961 0.147661913831 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.268360905559 0.193483328276 139% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0993886437303 0.0970749176394 102% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.532168281938 0.42659136922 125% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.127113652259 0.0774707102158 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.449286608598 0.312017818177 144% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0517025794026 0.0698173142475 74% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.33743842365 132% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 6.87684729064 204% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 9.0 6.46551724138 139% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 20.0 14.657635468 136% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.