The market for the luxury-goods industry is on the decline. Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate, coupled with consumer fears, has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items, but especially on nonessential items. Since luxury goods are, by nature, nonessential, this market will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate, and luxury retailers should refocus their attention to lower-priced markets.
The author argument on the reason for decline for the market of luxury-goods is not entirely flawless. The premises of the arguments and its conclusion have certain logical faults.
For instance, how valid is the reports carried out on the decreased amount of money each household are willing to spend on essential and nonessential commodities? What type of methods was carried out to yield the reports? Was it survey or questionnaire? Were the types of questions asked redundant or not? What percentage of the population responded to the research carried out? Was it minority or majority? What ratio of the employed and unemployed people responded to the research? If little percentage responded, then the results don’t speak for the majority. Without knowing the answers to this questions, it will be unwarranted to conclude the reports as being what the whole population wants.
Furthermore, there are many types of nonessential goods; the fact that luxury is one doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be the first to decrease in the present economic climate. Some people place priority of certain nonessential over others, and so other nonessential goods might decrease in sales faster than luxury goods. There is also the fact that not all the population is unemployed or have consumer fears, some of them are employed one way or the other and will have no problem purchasing nonessential goods.
Lastly, there is no assurance that if luxury retailers refocus their attention to lower-priced market that it will yield higher sales. If more people are unemployed ij that population, then they won’t be able to afford lower-priced commodities either.
Therefore, even though there is the possibility that nonessential good will diminish in sales more than essential based on the study carried out on the population, there is no guaranty that luxury goods will be the goods to decline faster than other goods.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022-06-02 | alex.ogundipe@yahoo.com | 58 | view |
| 2021-12-22 | Abdulhafeez | 53 | view |
| 2021-11-01 | Adedayobello | 55 | view |
| 2021-08-28 | Ruth Ogboye | 60 | view |
| 2020-10-24 | Adams | 60 | view |
- Fifteen years ago Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors Since that time Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes and overall student 83
- In any field of inquiry the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In 83
- The market for the luxury goods industry is on the decline Recent reports show that a higher unemployment rate coupled with consumer fears has decreased the amount of money the average household spends on both essential and nonessential items but especial 60
- Governments should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In develop 58
- The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College a private institution to the college s governing committee we recommend that Grove College preserve its century old tradition of all female education rather t 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 313 350
No. of Characters: 1570 1500
No. of Different Words: 151 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.206 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.016 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.767 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 108 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 43 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 18.412 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.198 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.471 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.303 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.547 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 595, Rule ID: THIS_NNS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'these'?
Suggestion: these
...ajority. Without knowing the answers to this questions, it will be unwarranted to co...
^^^^
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...roblem purchasing nonessential goods. Lastly, there is no assurance that if lu...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, if, lastly, so, then, therefore, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 16.3942115768 55% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1622.0 2260.96107784 72% => OK
No of words: 310.0 441.139720559 70% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.23225806452 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.19604776685 4.56307096286 92% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85148153252 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 156.0 204.123752495 76% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.503225806452 0.468620217663 107% => OK
syllable_count: 498.6 705.55239521 71% => 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: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 22.8473053892 79% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.431836977 57.8364921388 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 95.4117647059 119.503703932 80% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.2352941176 23.324526521 78% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.17647058824 5.70786347227 73% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227080517735 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0646744645673 0.0743258471296 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0749799226468 0.0701772020484 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.119148631315 0.128457276422 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0243553757488 0.0628817314937 39% => 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: 12.3 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 53.21 48.3550499002 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.05 12.5979740519 104% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 5.0 12.3882235529 40% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.1389221557 83% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.