The following appeared in a memo to the board of directors of Bargain Brand Cereals."One year ago we introduced our first product, Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. Our very low prices quickly drew many customers away from the top-selling cereal companies.

As presented in a memo, the author recommends Bargain Brand to expand its business to other low-priced food products given the success of their breakfast cereal. At the first glance, this recommendation seems relatively sound. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the recommendation turns out to be unconvincing as it rest upon several unsolved questions.

First, in the argument the director does not provide enough evidences to explain why many customers choose Bargain Brand. Without providing any further details, the author consider the very low prices of Bargain Brand is the only reason. However, it is plausible that the prices of cereals from other top-selling companies are reasonable or even lower than Bargain Brand cereal and what attract customers are the good quality and taste of Bargain Brand breakfast cereal. In such case, low price of Bargain Brand cereal has nothing to do with its strong competitiveness among other companies. Even if it’s not like this, there may be little overlap in customers between Bargain and other companies as products of different prices may server different groups. Therefore, the author should include these factors into consideration.

Second, the author wrongly considers that Bargain Brand have to raise product prices to continue earn a profit in facing the strategies of other companies. Possibly, Bargain Brand may have lowered the cost or ameliorate the components in its breakfast cereal in order to keep making profit or drawing customers. Further, it is possible that companies producing top brands lowered their prices or introduced budget brands based on their own customers’ complaints or suggestions rather than compete with Bargain Brand. To make this recommendation more cogent, the author needs to think of these questions.

Finally, based on aforementioned points, the author proceeds to propose a far-fetched assertion that Bargain Brand should expand its business and start marketing other low-priced food products. Objections could be raised on the ground that in other low-priced food products, there may already had many companies similar to Bargain Brand which produce low-price food products. In this case, Bargain Brand is not likely to attract many customers. Moreover, low price may not be an influential factor for other food products.

In summary, although the author’s argument is not entirely invalid, existing information is not sufficient to fully support the recommendation. To strengthen it, he or she should solve the above questions and provide more supporting details.

Votes
Average: 6.8 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 365, Rule ID: IT_VBZ[1]
Message: Did you mean 'rests'?
Suggestion: rests
...tion turns out to be unconvincing as it rest upon several unsolved questions. Fir...
^^^^
Line 3, column 108, Rule ID: AFFORD_VB[1]
Message: This verb is used with the infinitive: 'to bargain'
Suggestion: To bargain
...es to explain why many customers choose Bargain Brand. Without providing any further de...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 57, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[8]
Message: The proper name in singular (Brand) must be used with a third-person verb: 'has'.
Suggestion: has
...or wrongly considers that Bargain Brand have to raise product prices to continue ear...
^^^^

Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, second, so, then, therefore, in summary

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 6.0 13.6137724551 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 25.0 28.8173652695 87% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => 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: 2226.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 405.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.4962962963 5.12650576532 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48604634366 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86593178658 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.523456790123 0.468620217663 112% => OK
syllable_count: 664.2 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 19.7664670659 96% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.4657888437 57.8364921388 86% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.157894737 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3157894737 23.324526521 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.36842105263 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.358472662912 0.218282227539 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121140480677 0.0743258471296 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0971822451269 0.0701772020484 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.194985474945 0.128457276422 152% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.122733810965 0.0628817314937 195% => OK

Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.62 12.5979740519 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.54 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?

---------------------

Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.

argument 1 -- OK

argument 2 -- not exactly

argument 3 -- OK
----------------

Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 19 15
No. of Words: 405 350
No. of Characters: 2153 1500
No. of Different Words: 204 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.486 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.316 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.725 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 174 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 82 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.316 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.588 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.632 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.349 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.559 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.095 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5