AWA Score: 5.5 - 6 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.
Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.
Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!
Good LuckMario79 wrote:
Hi!
Could you guys please help me by giving me some feedback on this AWA? Would truly appreciate it!
Many thanks in advance!
Mario
Argument:
The following appeared in a corporate memorandum of a beverage manufacturer:
“Our promotional price reductions on energy drinks have been highly successful, as we have seen a dramatic increase in unit sales. Further, surveys of our consumers indicate that this promotion was favorably received by the majority of our customers. Therefore, to improve our company’s profitability and enhance its perception in the eyes of consumers, similar price reductions should be offered on all drinks produced by our firm.”
Essay:
The presented argument contains several logical flaws which severely deligitimize its conclusion, the most serious of these being an unsupported cause/effect assumption and a very doubtful profitability strategy.
Firstly, the author assumes without any additional proof or data that the increase in sales was due to the price reductions. This claim is not solid, as there could have been several alternative motives for the increase, such as poor competitor performance or an external reason that caused a rise in sales for the entire energy drink market. If further evidence would have been provided, the argument could have had a more solid case, but since this evidence was lacking, the entire argument is without support.
Secondly, the company´s plan to achieve profitability results quite dubious, as profitability depends not only on unit sales but on margins as well. There is no information given by the argument proving that the price reductions still allows the company to make a profit or if the increase in sales with promotions is high enough to compensate for the reduced margins. The argument´s vagueness about this financial information, as well as its disregard for the logic behind a sound profitability strategy greatly undermines its validity as a whole.
Furthermore, there is no specific information given about the survey mentioned. We do not know how many people were polled or the background of said consumers. Are they regular consumers? Are they low-income consumers? These details would have, at least, slightly legitimized this survey as some kind of evidence, but given that was not the case, we really can´t blindly trust this information or its contribution to the author´s case.
Taking all of these points into account, we can conclude that the argument makes several logical mistakes and lacks the sufficient support to remain convincing to the reader, therefore being unsuccessful in its intended purpose.