Prediction is based on comparison of two sections of different routes with few other arguments used to strengthen the recommendation. But the prediction and arguments themselves are questionable. Memo fails to provide enough evidences for favouring one firm over another. The information provided in memo thus appears to be biased.
Lets start with the contrast of Routes 101 and Route 40. The nature of traffic that this routes face is missing. Some details on types of vehicles that comprise traffic on this two routes could have been vital to built a strong argument. As heavy vehicles tend to cause greater damage to the pavement. Route 101 could be a national highway providing connectivity between two industrial areas. Thus the traffic on these routes will comprise mostly of large container and semi trucks travelling on high speeds. Whereas the Route 40 could be an inter-connectivity road between two city for light motor vehicles only. The weather conditions in both areas might also be different. A glance on how the weather affects both routes provides versatile ground for comparison. One Route may belong to region with inconsistent weather while other may belong to a region with comfortable ambiance. Both Roads might have been subject to different conditions from snow fall, to rainstorm, to high temperatures.
Secondly, There is gap in inventory information. Recent acquisition of state-of-the-art machinery by Appian fails to provide upper hand to Appian roadways, as Good Intentions might be already equipped with such machinery. A new equipment is more susceptible to malfunction than an already in-line one. The operators at Appian may not have any prior knowledge of new machinery which leaves a vulnerability in argument. While Good Intentions could have experienced operators in team. But the argument fails to provide any such contrast.
Moreover, any comparison between quality control managers in both firms is missing. Just having a new guy on job leaves few susceptibility on the quality of job. Typically new people on job may not be aware of assessment methods specific to firm. Raw material composition also varies from firm to firm. Thus this argument fails to give and upper hand to Appian.
Conclusively a detail analysis with predefined list of parameters is needed to compare both the firms on equal grounds.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
...ded in memo thus appears to be biased. Lets start with the contrast of Routes 101 a...
^^^^
Line 2, column 238, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... been vital to built a strong argument. As heavy vehicles tend to cause greater da...
^^
Line 2, column 393, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...nectivity between two industrial areas. Thus the traffic on these routes will compri...
^^^^
Line 2, column 539, Rule ID: A_INFINITVE[1]
Message: Probably a wrong construction: a/the + infinitive
...h speeds. Whereas the Route 40 could be an inter connectivity road between two city for ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 72, Rule ID: STATE_OF_THE_ART[1]
Message: Did you mean 'state-of-the-art'?
Suggestion: state-of-the-art
...tory information. Recent acquisition of state of the art machinery by Appian fails to provide up...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 223, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'new equipment'.
Suggestion: New equipment
...e already equipped with such machinery. A new equipment is more susceptible to malfunction than...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 419, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ich leaves a vulnerability in argument. While Good Intentions could have experienced ...
^^^^^
Line 6, column 121, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[6]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun susceptibility seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'little susceptibility'.
Suggestion: little susceptibility
...ng. Just having a new guy on job leaves few susceptibility on the quality of job. Typically new pe...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 163, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Typically,
...w susceptibility on the quality of job. Typically new people on job may not be aware of a...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 305, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...position also varies from firm to firm. Thus this argument fails to give and upper h...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, thus, whereas, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 7.0 28.8173652695 24% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 55.5748502994 113% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1988.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 381.0 441.139720559 86% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21784776903 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.41805628031 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85514846342 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 204.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535433070866 0.468620217663 114% => OK
syllable_count: 617.4 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 0.0 4.96107784431 0% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 19.7664670659 137% => OK
Sentence length: 14.0 22.8473053892 61% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.5961795045 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 73.6296296296 119.503703932 62% => OK
Words per sentence: 14.1111111111 23.324526521 60% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.88888888889 5.70786347227 51% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 10.0 5.25449101796 190% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 13.0 4.67664670659 278% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.159781864186 0.218282227539 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.042179457848 0.0743258471296 57% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0521667364025 0.0701772020484 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0726373462348 0.128457276422 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0486882127588 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 10.2 14.3799401198 71% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.27 48.3550499002 118% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.8 12.197005988 72% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.4 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.43 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 98.500998004 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.0 12.3882235529 48% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 7.6 11.1389221557 68% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
---------------------
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: 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.