The following appeared in a memo at XYZ company.
"When XYZ lays off employees, it pays Delany Personnel Firm to offer those employees assistance in creating résumés and developing interviewing skills, if they so desire. Laid-off employees have benefited greatly from Delany's services: last year those who used Delany found jobs much more quickly than did those who did not. Recently, it has been proposed that we use the less expensive Walsh Personnel Firm in place of Delany. This would be a mistake because eight years ago, when XYZ was using Walsh, only half of the workers we laid off at that time found jobs within a year. Moreover, Delany is clearly superior, as evidenced by its bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. After all, last year Delany's clients took an average of six months to find jobs, whereas Walsh's clients took nine."
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.
The argument claims that when XYZ uses Delany Personnel Firm, which is better than Walsh Personnel Firm. There are three reason that Delany is better than Walsh: Delany found job offering much more quickly than Walsh Personnel Firm, Delany’s fine for usage is less expensive than Walsh, and Delany has bigger staff and larger number of branch offices. This argument seem firmly logical in exposition, but there was multifarious unsubstantiated evidences that aggravate the argument.
First of all, there is no evidence that comparison between Delany Personnel firm and Walsh Personnel Firm is not remarkable at its stance. Whereas the argument purports that Delany Personnel firm finds the job within six months, Walsh Personnel Firm is showing that only half of the laid-off employees are hired within 9months 8years ago. Walsh Personnel Firm 8years ago doesn’t represent the general vision of Walsh Personnel Firm because it doesn’t ameliorate the fact that recent time of Walsh Personnel Firm work the same process as they were 8years ago.
Moreover, argument doesn’t show the evidence that how much efficiency could be when laid-off employee were hired; do Delany Personnel Firm consider about laid-off employee’s interest? In the argument, there is not so much information in that condition. If Delany Personnel Firm doesn’t consider about the salaries, position, or even interest of laid-off employee, then it should be easier to make people hired. There can be valuable reason for having a delay of taking a job in Walsh: they probably consider about employee’s interest, company’s taste and all backgrounds of employee. Therefore, there should be enough explanation which job accepted from the Delany.
Lastly, there is no evidence that bigger staff and larger number of branch offices are valuable as they judge the efficiency. More staff and more offices are not meant to be more efficient and stronger strategy to help laid-off employee. There should be sufficient reason that number of staff strengthen on gathering various and bigger information of finding a job. If not, then the argument doesn’t quite seem reasonable.
Conclusively, argument about having a job from Delany Personnel Firm is aggravated by unproven evidence, but when argument intensify argument with those three concealed evidence, then it will buttress the argument that XYZ should use Delany Personnel Firm more than Walsh Personnel Firm.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...el Firm more than Walsh Personnel Firm.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, lastly, moreover, so, then, therefore, whereas, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2101.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.51443569554 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7848671941 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 181.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.475065616798 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 628.2 705.55239521 89% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 63.8484533877 57.8364921388 110% => OK
Chars per sentence: 131.3125 119.503703932 110% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8125 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.75 5.70786347227 83% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.262649995249 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0979539732566 0.0743258471296 132% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771640575944 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.15533485218 0.128457276422 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0593933117572 0.0628817314937 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.4 14.3799401198 114% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.97 12.5979740519 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 77.0 98.500998004 78% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
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.