Five years ago, the local university built two new dormitories through different contractors: Aleph Construction and Gimmel Builders. The buildings were nearly identical, though it cost Gimmel Builders approximately 20 percent more to construct their dormitory. Aleph’s dormitory, however, has required approximately 10 percent more in maintenance costs per year over the past five years. Therefore, to construct their new dormitory with the lowest overall cost, the local university should hire Aleph Construction.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions in the expert’s claim. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In this argument, the author concludes that the university should hire Aleph Construction to build their new dormitory in order to have lowest cost. To bolster this suggestion, the author point out that five years ago, Aleph Construction built a dormitory similar to that constructed by another contractor with fewer budgets. Although this statement seems plausible, it is not convincing enough as it stands since it falsely rests on several assumptions without proper justification.
First of all, the author fails to consider if there is a better option other than choosing between the two mentioned contractors. By concluding that the school should choose Aleph Construction since it cost less for them to build the dormitory, the author implies that there is no other company competing for the task. However, there is no evidence stated in the argument that supports this assumption. In fact, it is not necessarily the case. It is entirely possible that there are many other construction companies who can take this task with lower cost. It is also possible that it may be more cost-saving to let Aleph Construction and Gimmel Builder cooperate as long as they both happy with this decision. Therefore, the credibility of this suggestion is not well established without considering and ruling out all the possible alternative options.
In addition, the author commits a logical fallacy by falsely assuming that what happened 5 years ago will surely be repeated again now without considering all the possible variables. For example, perhaps the Gimmel Builder has grown much bigger than Aleph Construction and is able to offer a better bid since it purchases the construction materials in a bigger amount and cheaper price. Thus, the author should not assume that it would be cheaper to choose Aleph Construction for sure.
In conclusion, we cannot fairly evaluate this recommendation since there are still many critical points open to doubt. Unless more information can be provided that shows there is no better candidate for the new construction, and that in long-term the overall cost for Aleph Construction’s building is cheaper than that built by Gimmel Builder, we cannot come to the conclusion that it is better to choose Aleph Construction. Furthermore, the author should also prove that Aleph Construction is willing to do the task for the same price and that the current satisfying result can be recreated again.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 132, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'have the lowest'.
Suggestion: have the lowest
...o build their new dormitory in order to have lowest cost. To bolster this suggestion, the a...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 372, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...re is no evidence stated in the argument that supports this assumption. In fact, ...
^^
Line 5, column 117, Rule ID: REPEAT_AGAIN[1]
Message: Use simply 'repeated'.
Suggestion: repeated
...hat happened 5 years ago will surely be repeated again now without considering all the possibl...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, furthermore, however, if, may, so, still, therefore, thus, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.6327345309 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 28.8173652695 139% => OK
Preposition: 43.0 55.5748502994 77% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2048.0 2260.96107784 91% => OK
No of words: 392.0 441.139720559 89% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22448979592 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44960558625 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92650855313 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 204.123752495 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.510204081633 0.468620217663 109% => OK
syllable_count: 620.1 705.55239521 88% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Interrogative: 0.0 0.471057884232 0% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2378943966 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 128.0 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.5 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.75 5.70786347227 153% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.259273197821 0.218282227539 119% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0861880004519 0.0743258471296 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0815070536398 0.0701772020484 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172671599984 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0391489858322 0.0628817314937 62% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.4 14.3799401198 107% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.3550499002 97% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.197005988 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.45 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.