The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors:
“Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term. We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company. For the first time in ten years, a company that has developed satellite technology has been approved by the FTA to compete with the current satellite provider. That company is Techcorporation. A consumer survey last year indicated that over eighty percent of respondents were dissatisfied with the current satellite television provider and would want to switch to another provider if the industry were not a monopoly. Thus, the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television will prove to be highly profitable for those who invest now.”
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the advice and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the advice.
The argument reaches the conclusion that the new venture of Techcorporation into satellite television would prove to be highly profitable for current investors, based on the results of a consumer survey from the previous year, and approval from the FTA. In reaching this conclusion, however, the author of the argument fails to answer three important questions, the answers to which could dramatically affect the veracity of the argument's logic.
First, is the consumer survey from the previous year still representative of today's consumers? It may be possible that the market has changed greatly, and that the current dissatisfaction levels that consumers have with the existing satellite television provider has greatly lowered. If the existing satellite television provider made several changes in their operations after the complaints of last year, then it is possible that less than 50% of current consumers are still dissatisfied. To assume that a survey from one year ago is still representative of today's public would need further evidence and reasoning; the author has not cited any evidence to show that the results of the study have not drifted significantly since its conduction. If the answer to the above question is found to be 'no,' then it would significantly affect the argument made, making it less convincing to investors.
Second, is it reasonable to assume that respondents who said they would switch to a different provider would actually do so, in the event that Techcorporation begins its operations? It is possible that the survey respondents were not properly sampled, and that inadequate information was recorded. What if, for instance, the consumers would be unwilling to switch to a different provider unless low-cost options are provided? In this case, Techcorporation would have to demonstrate to potential investors that the costs associated with its operations would be low enough to pull away consumers from the existing monopoly. It takes time and effort to change infrastructure associated with satellite television, with its cables and dishes. The current form of the argument does not indicate that these have been accounted for, when presenting itself as an alternative. Hence, a negative answer to this question would adversely affect the prospects of investments into the company.
Finally, does FTA approval really signify that Techcorporation has great potential in the market? It may be possible that the FTA approves companies without a lot of investigation into their working, and that many non-satellite-based companies that have been approved were unsuccessful at getting rid of monopolies in those areas. It is also likely that satellite providers do not make significant profits, and hence may have opted to shift to wired options. A related question would be: Does Techcorporation have substantial evidence to prove that their business would be profitable enough for investors? It is likely that, as a result of infrastructure issues that may arise when installing Techcorporation satellites, the costs may be too high for customers to make the switch. This would be quite unfavourable for investors, and hence, the author should firmly establish the answer to this question.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, considerably fails in its ability to address the aforementioned questions. There are a lot of possibilities that the author has failed to rule out, that could greatly harm investors who do not consider the unstated assumptions and other features of the argument. If the author is able to reframe their argument with substantiative evidence to answer all these questions, only then can it be persuasive enough to gain investors.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-26 | Ataraxia-m | 64 | view |
| 2023-08-10 | Saket Choudhary | 68 | view |
| 2023-07-11 | Technoblade | 58 | view |
| 2023-04-19 | keisham | 57 | view |
| 2023-04-15 | Manav27 | 62 | view |
- The following appeared in a health newsletter A ten year nationwide study of the effectiveness of wearing a helmet while bicycling indicates that ten years ago approximately 35 percent of all bicyclists reported wearing helmets whereas today that number i 58
- The best ideas arise from a passionate interest in commonplace things Discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement above and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and supporting your position you should con 80
- The following appeared in a newsletter offering advice to investors Techcorporation is our top pick for investment this term We urge all of our clients to invest in this new company For the first time in ten years a company that has developed satellite te 58
- Sports stars and movie stars have an obligation to behave as role models for the young people who look up to them In return for the millions of dollars that they are paid we should expect them to fulfill this societal responsibility Write a response in wh 66
- Some people believe that increasing violence in the media is the cause of increasing violence in our society especially among children Others believe that children s peer groups and parental role models are a much more powerful influence on children s beh 66
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: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 581 350
No. of Characters: 3063 1500
No. of Different Words: 251 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.91 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.272 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.082 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 224 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 176 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 141 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 92 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.261 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.908 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.309 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.505 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.055 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 430, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...dramatically affect the veracity of the arguments logic. First, is the consumer survey...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, finally, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, so, still, then, for instance, in conclusion, as a result
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.9520958084 170% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 28.0 13.6137724551 206% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 54.0 28.8173652695 187% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 55.5748502994 128% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3135.0 2260.96107784 139% => OK
No of words: 581.0 441.139720559 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39586919105 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90957651803 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1384144011 2.78398813304 113% => OK
Unique words: 265.0 204.123752495 130% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456110154905 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 974.7 705.55239521 138% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.777880802 57.8364921388 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.304347826 119.503703932 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2608695652 23.324526521 108% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.65217391304 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.131655775434 0.218282227539 60% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0417437852016 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0333538816625 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0760823690852 0.128457276422 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0406948550621 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.5979740519 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 133.0 98.500998004 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.