AWA Score: 5 out of 6!
I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.
Coherence and connectivity: 5/5
This rating corresponds to the flow of idea and expression from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analysed. 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 is 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: 4/5
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocaubulary 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 luck
ukc1998 wrote:
Please evaluate my essay, point out the errors and suggest corrections and ideas to improve my performance.
The following appeared as part of a campaign to sell advertising time on a local radio station to local businesses.
“The Cumquat Cafe began advertising on our local radio station this year and was delighted to see its business increase by 10 percent over last year’s totals. Their success shows you how you can use radio advertising to make your business more profitable.”
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The argument claims that other businesses should also use radio advertising to make their business more profitable. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that the business of Cumquat Cafe experienced a growth of 10% after it began advertising on the local radio station. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Moreover, the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on various assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the growth of 10% in the business of Cumquat Cafe is a successful outcome. However, it has not been mentioned whether the increase in business was offset by the amount spent on advertising. If the cost of advertising was greater than the growth of business, the profitability of the Cumquat Cafe would certainly have decreased. Thus, the argument mislead us to arrive at the conclusion. Without having proper comparison between the growth and the cost of advertising, 10% increase in business cannot be viewed as success. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that the cost advertising was significantly smaller than the growth seen in the business of the Cumquat Cafe.
Second, the argument assumes that advertising on radio was the only reason behind the growth in business of the Cumquat Cafe. However, there can be other externalities that play vital role on the growth of a cafe. For example, it might be possible that the demand of the service provided by the Cumquat Cafe would have increased either due to decrease in the number of other competing cafes or due to increase in the population of the city where the Cumquat Cafe was located. Furthermore, the argument fails to mention many types of internalities. Was the Cumquat Cafe providing faster orders than before? Was it accepting payments in all forms? Was the quality of food improved? Was any new attractive service introduced? Without answer to this questions, it is illogical to contribute the growth of the Cumquat Cafe to radio advertising. If the argument would have provided evidence to answer all these questions, it could have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that radio advertising can too help other businesses increase their profitability. However, we cannot be sure that the strategy that worked well in the favor of the Cumquat Cafe will also work for other businesses. It might be possible that most of the radio listeners were those who were very much interested in the products and services of a cafe. Therefore, the generalization that the argument makes based on the single case might not hold true for other cases. This generalization would have been justified if the argument had been able to provide evidence proving radio advertising beneficial for businesses too.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons. Hence, the argument is disputed and indefensible. It could have been considerably strengthened if the author would have provided all the sufficient and necessary information to support the claim. Without these information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.