"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways more than four years ago, is still in good condition. In a demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality, Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years."
The author of this argument recommends that they should hire Appian Roadways to construct roads for all our malls. To justify the recommendation, the vice president cites the following fact. (1) Compering two distinct roads in the different place show that Appian Roadways can construct high quality road, which does not repairing for four years. (2) This company now uses of the modern paving machinery and hire new quality-control manager, so they can improve roads quality. (3) We do not need to repair the roads for four years, if Appian Roadways builds them. Scrutiny, each of these factors, however, reveals that none of them lend credible supports to the recommendation.
First, base on the fact that roads, which are build by Appian Roadways have not badly cracked, the author infers that this company can build high quality roads. However, the author must provide others factors, which are effective in this matter. In fact, it is entirely possible less people use of these roads, or stable weather impact less these roads negatively. Without considering these possible scenarios, the author cannot justifiably conclude that Appian Roadways can butter better roads.
Second, the author relies on the fact that purchasing new machinery and hiring new quality-control manager in Appian Roadways can be effective in its quality. Nevertheless, it is quite possible the new machine can not have better function rather that old machine. In addition, the new quality-control manager may have not enough experience, which can impact negatively quality. In short, since the author relies on limited information, I can not take the author’s conclusion seriously.
In the third place, the soundness of the conclusion that we do not need to repair the roads, which are build by Appian Roadways, for at least four years should be answered by the author. It is possible many people go to malls, which can destroy the roads.
In sum, the argument is flawed logically and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author must improve more information about all effective factors on quality of the road. In order to evaluate better the conclusion, we need to know more about the
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 280, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun people is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...atter. In fact, it is entirely possible less people use of these roads, or stable we...
^^^^
Line 4, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...pian Roadways can butter better roads. Second, the author relies on the fact th...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...author's conclusion seriously. In the third place, the soundness of the c...
^^
Line 9, column 278, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nclusion, we need to know more about the
^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'may', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'so', 'then', 'therefore', 'third', 'at least', 'in addition', 'in fact', 'in short', 'in the third place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240196078431 0.25644967241 94% => OK
Verbs: 0.134803921569 0.15541462614 87% => OK
Adjectives: 0.107843137255 0.0836205057962 129% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0514705882353 0.0520304965353 99% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0343137254902 0.0272364105082 126% => Less pronouns wanted. Try not to use 'you, I, they, he...' as the subject of a sentence
Prepositions: 0.110294117647 0.125424944231 88% => OK
Participles: 0.0245098039216 0.0416121511921 59% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.76417370339 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0220588235294 0.026700313972 83% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.001811407834 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.100490196078 0.113004496875 89% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0367647058824 0.0255425247493 144% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0147058823529 0.0127820249294 115% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2210.0 2731.13054187 81% => OK
No of words: 357.0 446.07635468 80% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.19047619048 6.12365571057 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34677393335 4.57801047555 95% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.408963585434 0.378187486979 108% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.263305322129 0.287650121315 92% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.201680672269 0.208842608468 97% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.117647058824 0.135150697306 87% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.76417370339 2.79052419416 99% => OK
Unique words: 177.0 207.018472906 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.495798319328 0.469332199767 106% => OK
Word variations: 52.1260442359 52.1807786196 100% => OK
How many sentences: 19.0 20.039408867 95% => OK
Sentence length: 18.7894736842 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Sentence length SD: 31.8124698978 57.7814097925 55% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.315789474 141.986410481 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.7894736842 23.2022227129 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.842105263158 0.724660767414 116% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 45.1200058971 51.9672348444 87% => OK
Elegance: 1.7 1.8405768891 92% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.252715302527 0.441005458295 57% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.113248173539 0.135418324435 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0616033718172 0.0829849096947 74% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.571343343424 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.124449095979 0.147661913831 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.10674557006 0.193483328276 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0559991975707 0.0970749176394 58% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.380710029257 0.42659136922 89% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0307183314636 0.0774707102158 40% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181386577706 0.312017818177 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0577814810895 0.0698173142475 83% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.87684729064 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.82512315271 104% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 6.46551724138 108% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 5.36822660099 93% => OK
Neutral topic words: 2.0 2.82389162562 71% => OK
Total topic words: 14.0 14.657635468 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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: This is not the final score. 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.