AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and Connectivity: 5/6
The essay demonstrates good coherence and connectivity. Ideas are logically organized, and there is a clear flow between sentences and paragraphs. The transitions help guide the reader through the analysis effectively.
Word Structure: 5/6
The word structure is generally clear, and the essay uses a variety of sentence structures. There are no major issues with word choice or phrasing. However, the phrase "Ready-2-wear" should be corrected to "Ready-to-Ware" for accuracy.
Paragraph Structure and Formation: 5/6
The paragraph structure is well-formed, with an introduction, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. Each paragraph focuses on a specific aspect of the argument, contributing to the overall coherence.
Language and Grammar: 5/6
The language is clear, and the grammar is mostly accurate. There are a few minor grammatical errors, such as "Cost is relative to people and provided services," where it would be more precise to say, "Cost is relative to the services provided to people." Additionally, there is a minor issue in the phrase "this company can suffice with generating enough revenue," where it might be clearer to say, "this company can suffice by generating enough revenue."
Vocabulary and Word Expression: 5/6
The vocabulary is varied, and expressions are generally clear. The essay effectively uses terminology relevant to the argument. However, there is room for improvement in terms of using more varied vocabulary for phrases like "very weak" and "unsupported claim."
Grammatical mistakes and errors:
"Ready-2-wear" should be corrected to "Ready-to-Ware" for accuracy.
"Cost is relative to people and provided services" could be revised to "Cost is relative to the services provided to people."
In the phrase "this company can suffice with generating enough revenue," it might be clearer to say, "this company can suffice by generating enough revenue."
Overall, the essay is well-structured, with clear analysis and effective communication of ideas. Minor improvements in grammar, vocabulary, and precision would enhance its overall quality.
smkj1713 wrote:
Here's my version for the same.
chineseburned thanks for the template.
The argument claims that by reducing the benefits and incentives included in the package, which Ready-2-wear offers to professional staff, the company will be able to save money and utilise it in other avenues such as research and development. This statement presents inconclusive information, offering dubious support and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.
First, the argument readily assumes that the cost of the package is high. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. Cost is relative to people and provided services. To say it is expensive one needs to analyse exactly what value is delivered to our customers. For example, most of the professional services provided in the market are costly due its nature of being special and personalised. In addition to this, the statement points out the drop in quarterly profits to high costs of the package. This correlation is baseless and needs evidence. It can be the case where even though the quarterly profits have declined over the last two years but overall profits have increased for the entire period. There can be other factors leading to cash burnout and falsely attributing the difference to the package's losses can be a serious flaw in coming to this conclusion.
Second, the argument claims that the company has had marginal success in recruiting and training high-quality professional staff. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the number of customers and profits. We don't have a scale to measure the success of this company. To illustrate this gap, we can take an example of a company which also offers professional services to people. It can be the case that in order to be profitable you need only 4-5 customers a month. Because the costs are relatively high for such kinds of packages, the company can suffice with generating enough revenue to become profitable from these few customers.
Finally, the argument concludes that the company can save money by reducing the incentives it offers in the package and invest that amount in research and development initiatives. From this statement again, it is not at all clear how it will become profitable. It might be the case that the current customers are using the package for bundled benefits and discontinuing the same will lead the company to lose these customers as well. On the contrary comparing the profits for this package with this year to last year needs data. We need to know what were the sales and profits of the package with reduced benefits and incentives before the tow year period. Also, will funding research and development initiatives lead to more sales and help the company to become more profitable? There's no proof to back this. Also, instead of saving the money the package could be marketed better and this could drive the sales better. Without supporting evidence and data from the past two year period and the current sales number, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. As a result the conclusion has no legs to stand on.
In summary, the argument is flawed and thus unconvincing. The statement could have been strengthened if the company had provided all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors.
close
Updated on: 14 Oct 2021, 19:17
