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.
Five years ago, as the local university has witnessed engaging two different contractors for construction of their dormitories, it is an indisputable fact that the university will now decide to choose between the two contractors on the basis of their cost effectiveness. But the author’s suggestion to choose Aleph Construction are based on weak evidences, unsupported assumptions and equivocal statements. Author’s opinion stand to be unsubstantiated for various reasons based on which he asserted such choice.
The author’s has relied on two parameters for deciding the overall cost productivity. First that Gimmel Builders have charged 20 % more to construct the dormitory and Aleph Construction have charged 10% more in maintenance per year over five years. The construction charge and maintenance charge are two different criterias- first is one time pre construction cost and the other is recurring post construction cost. Both are not linked to each-other. So the evidence based on which author has favored Aleph Construction are based on fallacies and insufficient data. Even though 20% is more than 10% but the basis on which such percentage is calculated is different and so the overall effectivity or cost of construction cannot be ascertained form such facts.
The author stated that the dormitories made by both constructor were identical, but as per the author if Gimmel Builders have charged 20% more to construct, then it might have added some extra features to show what suffice him to charge that additional cost like adding better quality tiles, paint or interiors. And Aleph Construction charging 10% maintenance cost per year must have defaulted in forming a proper infrastructure like inferior bases or unplanned structure which have incurred the overall maintenance cost per year. Unless the author creates a proper survey of whether all features of both the dormitories are same and identical, cost effectivity of Aleph Construction are dubious and susceptible.
The author needs more information’s to create a strong argument and adjudge which construction company would be best fitted to hire like what all quality of materials are used by both the constructors? What are the total construction costs charged by both the builders? How much time required by each of them and what is the average cost of maintenance to be beared every year?
The university shall be benefitted if it could save cost in the construction of the dormitories but the university shall also account for a proper infrastructure for a better living of the students inside that and hence the authors arguments needs to be well supported with other facts to decide on his opinion. Otherwise the argument will stand unwarranted and ambiguous based on erroneous assumptions.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 17 15
No. of Words: 439 350
No. of Characters: 2295 1500
No. of Different Words: 208 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.577 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.228 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.038 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 122 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.824 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.378 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.412 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.574 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 313, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Otherwise,
...h other facts to decide on his opinion. Otherwise the argument will stand unwarranted and...
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, so, then, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 11.1786427146 179% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 14.0 28.8173652695 49% => OK
Preposition: 47.0 55.5748502994 85% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2352.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 439.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.3576309795 5.12650576532 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.57737117129 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11929148026 2.78398813304 112% => OK
Unique words: 209.0 204.123752495 102% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476082004556 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 722.7 705.55239521 102% => 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
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 0.0 4.22255489022 0% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 79.455674135 57.8364921388 137% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.352941176 119.503703932 116% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8235294118 23.324526521 111% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.52941176471 5.70786347227 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328145777858 0.218282227539 150% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110918469724 0.0743258471296 149% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0899320948197 0.0701772020484 128% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.185705679484 0.128457276422 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0814243068298 0.0628817314937 129% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.3799401198 116% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 12.3882235529 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.