Essay topics: The regional brand manager sent the following memo to the national brand manager for Sun-Beem Facial Cleanser.
“We need to institute a huge publicity campaign for the launch of Sun-Beem’s improved formula. Without an enormous media blitz, including television, radio, internet, and magazine ads, potential new customers will not be aware of our product. And previous customers will not be aware that Sun-Beem’s new, non-carcinogenic formula is on the shelves. The best way to combat the negative publicity Sun-Beem’s old formula received is to fight fire with fire, by using the media’s insatiable interest in any new news about Sun-Beem to sell the new formula. This will erase the negative connotations in the minds of former customers, and will ensure that Sun-Beem is once again the best-selling facial cleanser on the market.”
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument
The argument is about the publicity campaign of Sun-Beem's facial cleanser new formula and reclaims the old position in the market. The argument is unwarranted and flawed for the following reasons.
First of all, the author assumed that by the publicity they regain the trust of their old customers and attract more customers and erase the denounce against them. The author though does not provide any relevant data that provides where the fault was or how many customers complaints against them. It might be possible that customers do not complain about against the quality of the facial cleanser, they complain against the price or other things. The author should have surveyed the view of customers and collect the data before the launch of an improved formula. It might be possible that customers do not want improved cleanser. There is already facial cleanser with the same formula.
Besides, the author does not provide any explanations that, the cleanser is actually improved. As there is no scientific data that prove that the improved formula is actually better than another facial cleanser. It might be possible that the new formula not suitable for many customers. It might be possible that the position of the company actually bottoms on the market even with their other products.
The author provides another claim that by huge publicity they can erase the negative connotation and can increase the new customers. It is a flawed assumption because without a proper survey it is impossible to know what consumers want from the market. It is unwise to assume such position and can actually lose more customers. The author should have mentioned what negative publicity happened against them. It might be possible that the new improved formula has the same flawed as the previous one.
The argument is flawed and based on unwarranted reasons. The argument has failed to provide and feasible conclusion or convincing data that proved that the huge publicity of the improved formula can help them to regain the position and also erase the negative connotations.
- Governments should offer a free university education to any student who has beenadmitted to a university but who cannot afford the tuition. 58
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the planning department of an electric power company. "Several recent surveys indicate that homeowners are increasingly eager to conserve energy. At the same time, manufacturers are now marketing many home 51
- "We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning." 50
- People's attitudes are determined more by their immediate situation or surroundings than by society as a whole. 66
- The editor of a local newspaper sent the following memo to the managing editor of the paper:“Three years ago when we surveyed our subscribers, they complained about the quality of the reporting and writing in the paper. Since that time, we have made a c 32
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 339 350
No. of Characters: 1699 1500
No. of Different Words: 135 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.291 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.012 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.446 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 104 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 28 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 17.842 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.808 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.316 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.362 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.565 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.137 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 138, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...rs and attract more customers and erase the denounce against them. The author though does no...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 96, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...hat, the cleanser is actually improved. As there is no scientific data that prove ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, besides, first, if, so, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 29.0 55.5748502994 52% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 10.0 16.3942115768 61% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1741.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.13569321534 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.51329510981 2.78398813304 90% => OK
Unique words: 139.0 204.123752495 68% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.410029498525 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 542.7 705.55239521 77% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.5309635066 57.8364921388 70% => OK
Chars per sentence: 91.6315789474 119.503703932 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.8421052632 23.324526521 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.73684210526 5.70786347227 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.146982619886 0.218282227539 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.054637469843 0.0743258471296 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0535897127832 0.0701772020484 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.102707048515 0.128457276422 80% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0685597587559 0.0628817314937 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.24 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.18 8.32208582834 86% => OK
difficult_words: 58.0 98.500998004 59% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.