AWA Score: 5 out of 6
Coherence and connectivity: 3.5/5
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: 4.5/5
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 Luckcoolgirl123 wrote:
Hi,
Please review my essay
Thanks,
Lakshmi
-------------------------------
The following appeared as part of an article in the business section of a local newspaper:
“The owners of the Cumquat Café evidently made a good business decision in moving to a new location, as can be seen from the fact that the Café will soon celebrate its second anniversary there. Moreover, it appears that businesses are not likely to succeed at the old location: since the Café’s move, three different businesses—a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet-grooming shop—have occupied its former spot.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
---------------------------------
The argument states that Cumquat Café’s decision to move to a new location was a good business decision, since the Café will soon be completing 2 years at the new location. The argument also suggests that the old location may not be profitable for businesses in general, since three different businesses setup shop after Cumquat Café relocated. The argument, as it stands, holds little strength and must be challenged against contextual questioning.
Firstly, the argument assumes that because the Café has completed ~2 years at this new location, it has also been profitable in this period. The argument does not provide any tangible evidence, such as revenue or foot traffic, to confirm the Café’s profitability in these 2 years. Moreover, the argument doesn’t clarify how well the Café is doing at the new location, as compared to the business at the old location. What if the Café is struggling to attract customers or generate revenue and this second anniversary celebration event is only a marketing strategy to promote the Café?
The argument also generalizes that the old location may not be suitable for businesses because several businesses occupied the old location in the span of two years. Not only is this line of reasoning vague, but it is also flawed. The three businesses listed in the argument – a tanning salon, an antique emporium, and a pet-grooming shop – may have moved out of this location due to other factors, unrelated to the location itself. What if each of these businesses had a competitor in the locality? Without truly assessing the demographics of the location and the health of these businesses occupying this location over the years, it is misleading to suggest that businesses are not likely to succeed at this location.
As explained in the above lines, the argument is illogical and unconvincing. In other to make a strong case for the new location, the argument should perform a thorough evaluation of the Café’s financial health over the years.