The author concludes that it is better to make a contract with Appian Roadways for paving all access road of the new shopping malls. The argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. To justify this conclusion, the author reasons that after four years the paved route by Appian Roadways is in good condition but the road which Intentions Roadways has been paved 2 years ago has some damages. However, Scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for the author's conclusion.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that two roads have the same condition this is merely an assumption made without much solid ground. For example, the weather conditions play an important role in the life of a paved road, or the traffic conditions, heavy traffic lead to make damage on the surface of the road sooner. Hence, the argument would have been much more convincing if it explicitly states that the 2 roads exactly have the same environment and traffic.
The author also claims that Appian Roadways purchased new machinery, therefore, it can pave in a high quality. This again is a weak and unsupported claim as it does not demonstrate any clear correlation between buying new machinery and building a long-lasting road. To illustrate further, the Good Intention Roadways also could use the same machinery. If the argument had provided evidence that shows technical specifics and compares the machines then it would have been a lot more convincing to the reader.
Finally, the author notes that Appian Roadways hired a new quality control manager. However, the survey of the evidence reveals that it provides little credible support for author's opinion in several critical respects, and raises several skeptical questions. For example, is hiring a new quality-control manager leads to having better quality? Without a convincing answer to this question, the reader is left with the impression that claims made by the author are not substantive.
In conclusion, the author's argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it further, the author must provide more concrete evidence, perhaps by way of a reliable survey of the roads. Ultimately, to better evaluate the argument, it would be necessary to know more information about what is reasons for making these differences between Route 110 and 40.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 530, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...rovides little credible support for the authors conclusion. First of all, the argumen...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 20, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...re not substantive. In conclusion, the authors argument is unpersuasive as it stands. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, hence, however, if, so, then, therefore, for example, in conclusion, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 28.8173652695 90% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1988.0 2260.96107784 88% => OK
No of words: 388.0 441.139720559 88% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.12371134021 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.43821085614 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7046534691 2.78398813304 97% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.515463917526 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 613.8 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.4060501921 57.8364921388 66% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.444444444 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5555555556 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.0 5.70786347227 105% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.158024956678 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.049891873683 0.0743258471296 67% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0771868380181 0.0701772020484 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.089197134073 0.128457276422 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.071589626684 0.0628817314937 114% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.5 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 94.0 98.500998004 95% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.