poojamodi wrote:
Can somebody please help to rate my essay? I have used online tool to rate it and it says 5.6 but I suspect a human would asses it differently so would appreciate any feedback that you might have. Thank you.
[b]“The Largo Piano Company has long been known for producing carefully handcrafted, expensive pianos used by leading concert pianists. During the past few years, however, our revenues have declined; meanwhile, the Allegro Musical Instrument Company introduced a line of inexpensive digital pianos and then saw its revenues increase. In order to increase Largo’s sales and in fact outsell Allegro, we should introduce a line of digital pianos in a variety of price ranges. Our digital pianos would be likely to find instant acceptance with customers since they would be associated with the prestigious Largo name.”
[i][/b][/i]
The argument claims that the Largo Piano company has seen a decline in revenue, and thus, should introduce a line of digital pianos in a variety of price ranges to improve their sales. The argument has utilised Largo Piano Company's competitor's revenue increases from its line of inexpensive digital pianos as evidence to support the claim. However, the argument is flawed as it is missing additional information to better assess the argument, and thus, is flawed and unconvincing. The underlying assumptions are: (i) The proportion of revenue from sales of expensive handcrafted pianos is higher compared to any other products offered by Largo to their customers (ii) Largo's customers are individuals who could previously afford expensive pianos, such as leading concert pianists, but that is no longer the case (iii) Expensive handcrafted pianos no longer offers a competitive advantage over inexpensive digital pianos (iv) Largo Piano company can utilise its brand name for uptake of digital pianos. The essay discusses how these assumptions can be better supported with evidence to strengthen the argument.
Firstly, the argument implies that the proportion of revenue from sales of expensive handcrafted pianos is higher compared to any other products offered by Largo to their customers. For example, if a company sells a product for $100, with annual sales of $1000, which is equivalent to 90% of its annual revenue, then it makes no sense to stop offering that product. Clarity on the proportion of sales and revenue brought in by the handcrafted pianos can better help understand the reasoning behind discontinuing a particular product.
Secondly, the argument suggests that Largo Piano company's products are currently only suited to sophisticated customers such as professionals, suggesting that offering products to professionals is one of their strategic advantages. There is no additional information to better understand how moving away from this particular strategy will support growth in annual revenue. To illustrate, if the digital piano is priced at 100 with around 100 novice customers, then the amount of revenue it would bring would be the same as revenue brought in by selling a single piano priced at 100,00 to a professional. The argument needs to support its claim by drawing comparisons between the market share of handcrafted pianos and digital pianos.
Thirdly, the argument also assumes that the Largo Piano company can utilise its brand name for the uptake of digital pianos. However, this might not necessarily be the case. The decision-making process utilised by an individual to purchase a particular product is based on a number of factors such as brand name, purchase price, and product reviews. Since, the digital piano would be the first kind of offering by Largo Piano Company it might take several years to see the same number of sales as that realised by Allergo, let alone outsell Allergo. This assumption could be better supported by conducting a market study that reveals the likelihood of a customer buying the digital piano from Allergo instead of Largo Piano company.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and can be better supported with examples to better assess the validity of the claim.
This is a really difficult one to score. The writing style, organization, and structure are excellent. Clear introduction, I very much appreciate the "tell them what you're going to tell them and then tell them" approach (I'd love a slightly more robust conclusion, but I gather you were running short on time and your introduction was clear enough to make the quick conclusion reasonable), and you do a great job introducing, discussing, and concluding each of your body paragraphs.
On the flip side, I'm not so sure about the arguments made for (i) and (ii). You're assuming that Largo will stop selling the more expensive models? The prompt doesn't suggest that Largo will replace its high-end offerings with digital models; it says that digital models should be introduced without any mention of whether the high-end models will continue.
Your work on (iii) is good.
I think the flaw that you missed is that high-end brands may not want to try to capture budget-minded market share and vice versa because it muddies the perception of their brands. Lamborghini doesn't start making $20,000 cars just because they see Hyundai enjoying strong revenue in that niche. And Hyundai doesn't start make $400,000 cars just because they see Lamborghini enjoying strong revenue in the luxury niche.
Additionally, there is a compound conclusion in the prompt: "In order to increase Largo’s sales
and in fact outsell Allegro." Whenever there's a compound conclusion, it's good to touch on each of them separately. In this case, even if we are able to increase sales, how does that mean that we will surpass Allegro. You sort of hit this in (iii), but I'd suggest driving the point home on compound conclusions that one doesn't always mean the other.
close
29 Jul 2022, 18:37
