Argument states that Appian Roadways had build a route, in another part of state, which is in good condition for the past four years, where as the surface of a section of route build by Good Intentions Roadways stated showing cracks with dangerous potholes. Author argues, in broad terms, that as the route built by Appian Roadways is more sturdy, they should hire Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all their new shopping malls. This argument lacks persuasive logic and is full of loopholes and assumptions.
The author states that surface of a section of Route 101, built by Good Intentions Roadways, is badly cracked and has a number of dangerous potholes. Author fails to acknowledge that there might some problem with that part of land, instead of the construction process of Good Intentions Roadways. For instance, It might the case that earth beneath the road might not be rigid enough to hold the road properly, hence surface of that section withered away. There might also be a chance that the said section of the road goes through severe weather changes, like intense heat followed pouring rain, which could cause such rapid deterioration. Hence, the condition of one section of road might not be a clear indication of construction material used or construction practices adopted by Good Intentions Roadways.
Similarly, only a section of Route 40 is in good condition since the last four years, and author holds this section as a proof of quality delivered by Appian Roadways. But he doesn't dwell into state of other section, or other routes build by Appian Roadways. In general, argument should have more exhaustively checked the routes built by respective roadways. More routes should have been scrutinised, taking average state of each section of the route instead of picking random section from a route.
Moreover, we also cannot compare these sections as they are in another part of the state. As stated above, the weather conditions might be different, or the land composition might have an affect of how the road is kept together. Author should have taken examples from similar part of the state for both the construction firms.
Author states that Appian Roadways, uses state-of-the-art construction machinery, and has a quality control manager. But it doesn't states if the construction machinery affects the robustness of the road. It might be possible that construction material used might play a bigger role in sturdiness of the road, instead of the machinery used to built it.
Examining and analysing these angles, the argument does not justify hiring Appian Roadways over Good Intentions Roadways. While there might be a chance that Appian Roadways builds more rugged roads than Good Intentions Roadways, there is a need for more research on construction practices of both firms before choosing one over other.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 42, Rule ID: HAD_VBP[1]
Message: Possible agreement error -- use past participle here: 'builded', 'built'.
Suggestion: builded; built
...rgument states that Appian Roadways had build a route, in another part of state, whic...
^^^^^
Line 1, column 135, Rule ID: WHERE_AS[1]
Message: Did you mean 'whereas'?
Suggestion: whereas
...good condition for the past four years, where as the surface of a section of route build...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 176, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ty delivered by Appian Roadways. But he doesnt dwell into state of other section, or o...
^^^^^^
Line 9, column 125, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...d has a quality control manager. But it doesnt states if the construction machinery af...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, if, moreover, similarly, so, well, while, for instance, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 16.3942115768 177% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2399.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 467.0 441.139720559 106% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13704496788 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.64867537961 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.64609703683 2.78398813304 95% => OK
Unique words: 213.0 204.123752495 104% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.456102783726 0.468620217663 97% => OK
syllable_count: 702.9 705.55239521 100% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.3829263049 57.8364921388 78% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.95 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.35 23.324526521 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.2 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.176773628508 0.218282227539 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0679810972033 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655609029183 0.0701772020484 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0993450565854 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0624597897536 0.0628817314937 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.5 14.3799401198 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 56.59 48.3550499002 117% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.5979740519 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.69 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 86.0 98.500998004 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.