The foremost evidence the passage has to bring and examine is the wool's market price. The passage believes the company would garnermore profits with its higher price. What it fails to mention, though, is the current cost of manufactoring, especially the wool price. The new supplier might demand a higher price for the raw materials than the previous one. Furthermore, with the gradual inflation, the wool price itself might have risen as well. Besides the wool price, the prices of labors, machines, and other aspects of manufactoring might have risen. The amount of rise in manufactoring cost could in fact be greater than the expected rise in the price of the coat, effectively nullifying
the extra profits the company has anticipated. Thus, if any of the speculations stand true, the passage's argument gravely gets weakened.
In addition to the wool price, the company has to analyze the reason why its major competitor has stopped its production of the alpha overcoat. Logically, the competitor would have increased the production of the coat when Sartorian has curtailed its production to meet the product demand alone. Nevertheless, the fact that the competitor no longer produces it suggests there exist some reasons adverse to the alpha overcoat, such as declining demand or introduction of other popular jackets. If either case comes out to be valid, then the passage further loses its strength in argument, for it would make unlikely for Sartorian to make any profits through the coat as well.
Lastly, the passage has to evaluate the current fashion trend. Five years ago in fashion time frame is ancient. Because of the protean fashion trend, the overcoat, despite its past glory, might not align with the current trend and could fail to whisk adequate attention from the customers. Therefore, the company has to perform research on whether the overcoat has become anachronistic. If the outcome of the research yields to be true, then the passage's claim that it would generate more profits is at stake.
To wrap it up, despite all the evidence compiled and elucidated, the passage fails to lend a convincing argument. In reality, the passage does not display numerous evidence to corroborate its position. Clearly, it can be concluded that it is too foolhardy to accept what the passage shows until the acquirements and understandings of the evidence as well as its implications are performed.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 2 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 3 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 1966 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.99 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.65 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 120 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 72 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 41 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.7 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.557 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.55 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.334 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.519 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 97, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'passages'' or 'passage's'?
Suggestion: passages'; passage's
...any of the speculations stand true, the passages argument gravely gets weakened. In a...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
besides, furthermore, if, lastly, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, well, as to, in addition, in fact, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 19.0 28.8173652695 66% => OK
Preposition: 48.0 55.5748502994 86% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2024.0 2260.96107784 90% => OK
No of words: 394.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13705583756 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.45527027702 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74367712722 2.78398813304 99% => OK
Unique words: 203.0 204.123752495 99% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515228426396 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 631.8 705.55239521 90% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 16.0 8.76447105788 183% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4992977473 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 101.2 119.503703932 85% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7 23.324526521 84% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.45 5.70786347227 113% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0874392307726 0.218282227539 40% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0310438384218 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396145351968 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0442048267923 0.128457276422 34% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0300855988329 0.0628817314937 48% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.53 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.