The following appeared in a magazine for the trucking industry.
"The Longhaul trucking company was concerned that its annual accident rate (the number of accidents per mile driven) was too high. It granted a significant pay increase to its drivers and increased its training standards. It also put strict limits on the number of hours per week each driver could drive. The following year, its trucks were involved in half the number of accidents as before the changes were implemented. A survey of other trucking companies found that the highest-paid drivers were the least likely to have had an accident. Therefore, trucking companies wishing to reduce their accident rate can do so simply by raising their drivers' pay and limiting the overall number of hours they drive."
The argument presented in the above editorial appears to be based on a number of flawed assumptions. Most importantly, as it attempts to draw parallels between Longhaul and other trucking companies, it overlooks a cardinal factor that the Longhaul incorporated to reduce its accidents – training to its drivers. Moreover, the argument seems to ignore other probable factors that might have caused a decrease in Longhaul’s accident rates. By failing to elucidate on the background factors and by not corroborating the claim through convicing data or evidence, the argument appears to lack cogency.
First of all, the editorial states that the Longhaul company had incorporated three measures to ensure a decrease in the accidents. So apart from raising their driver’s pay and limiting the overall number of driving hours, Longhaul also increased its training standards which might account to be the pivotal reason behind their lower accident rates. However, while the argument stresses upon the first two factors as a way to reduce the accidents of other trucking companies, it hugely ignores the training as a significant incorporation.
Secondly, the argument overlooks a sizeable number of probable factors that might have contributed to Longhaul’s success. At the very beginning, the argument does not discuss whether certain phenomenons for instance, road conditions or poor road safety legislations might have been other reasons why the accidents occurred in the first place. It does not elucidate whether Longhaul benefitted by incorporating the three measures, or because of improvement in the road conditions or better traffic law enforcements. Besides, it might be possible that the accidents occurred on a certain route and apart from incorporating the three measures, Longhaul had simply avoided the accident-prone route. Furthermore, there might have been only a few culpable drivers who needed training or a better pay after which they started to drive safely. In that case, the suggestions stated in the claim might not be necessary for all the drivers in a trucking company. Besides, it might be possible that Longhaul simply cut down on its truck numbers which might be a reason why its accident rates plummeted.
Apart from the above two points, the argument mentions other surveys that indicate highest-paid drivers are less likely to have an accident. Right at this juncture, the argument fails to expound whether these surveyed drivers were paid high because of their experience in the field, or only to incentivize them to drive safe. If they were paid in terms of experience, then naturally that would be a valid reason behind their lower likelihood of having an accident, since any experienced driver would know to driver safer than an amateur. Additionally, the other trucking companies might have enforced superior training to its drivers.
Hence, by only judging the pay scale and the number of hours of a few successful companies, the argument looks prejudiced to favour the drivers of other trucking companies such that they are paid high or relieved from long working hours. There is no assurance that by limiting the hours of driving, a company would not encounter any accident. If the drivers continue to be reckless and lack traffic sense, or if other factors like the road conditions are not improved, then it is unlikely that a high pay or a limited driving time would impact much. In conclusion, the argument would have significantly benefitted by providing data or evidences countering these unexplained points and to corroborate its own claim.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 81, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...orial appears to be based on a number of flawed assumptions. Most importantly, as...
^^
Line 3, column 308, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ds which might account to be the pivotal reason behind their lower accident rates...
^^
Line 3, column 366, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...eir lower accident rates. However, while the argument stresses upon the first two...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'besides', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'moreover', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'then', 'while', 'apart from', 'for instance', 'in conclusion', 'first of all', 'in the first place']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.23113964687 0.25644967241 90% => OK
Verbs: 0.168539325843 0.15541462614 108% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0866773675762 0.0836205057962 104% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0545746388443 0.0520304965353 105% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0353130016051 0.0272364105082 130% => OK
Prepositions: 0.115569823435 0.125424944231 92% => OK
Participles: 0.0577849117175 0.0416121511921 139% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.86468586948 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0337078651685 0.026700313972 126% => OK
Particles: 0.0016051364366 0.001811407834 89% => OK
Determiners: 0.112359550562 0.113004496875 99% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.024077046549 0.0255425247493 94% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0144462279294 0.0127820249294 113% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3605.0 2731.13054187 132% => OK
No of words: 572.0 446.07635468 128% => OK
Chars per words: 6.30244755245 6.12365571057 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.57801047555 107% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.407342657343 0.378187486979 108% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.333916083916 0.287650121315 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.253496503497 0.208842608468 121% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.13986013986 0.135150697306 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86468586948 2.79052419416 103% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 207.018472906 123% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.445804195804 0.469332199767 95% => OK
Word variations: 53.0094567303 52.1807786196 102% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.039408867 110% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.4873583532 57.7814097925 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.863636364 141.986410481 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.0 23.2022227129 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.909090909091 0.724660767414 125% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 3.58251231527 84% => OK
Readability: 59.3916083916 51.9672348444 114% => OK
Elegance: 1.5652173913 1.8405768891 85% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.480165632446 0.441005458295 109% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.113891655393 0.135418324435 84% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0671053183303 0.0829849096947 81% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.553413508739 0.58762219726 94% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.11091704259 0.147661913831 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.209074015106 0.193483328276 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0787524844459 0.0970749176394 81% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.45728710461 0.42659136922 107% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0738379462774 0.0774707102158 95% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.361667744084 0.312017818177 116% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0534768403273 0.0698173142475 77% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.33743842365 108% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.87684729064 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.82512315271 21% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 8.0 6.46551724138 124% => OK
Negative topic words: 12.0 5.36822660099 224% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 14.657635468 143% => OK
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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 to cover all aspects.