The following appeared in a memo from the vice president
of a company that builds shopping malls around the country.
"The surface of a section of Route 101, paved just two years
ago by Good Intentions Roadways, is now badly cracked
with a number of dangerous potholes. In another part of the
state, a section of Route 40, paved by Appian Roadways
more than four years ago, is still in good condition. In a
demonstration of their continuing commitment to quality,
Appian Roadways recently purchased state-of-the-art paving
machinery and hired a new quality-control manager.
Therefore, I recommend hiring Appian Roadways to
construct the access roads for all our new shopping malls. I
predict that our Appian access roads will not have to be
repaired for at least four years."
Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
In the memo, the vice president of a company recommends hiring Appian Roadway to build their access roads for their shopping malls. He predicts that using Appian access roads, they won’t need any repairs for at least four years. To justify his claims, he compares the two sections of Routs paved by Appian and Good Intentions Roadway companies during two different time periods. The author makes some unwarranted assumptions that render the argument highly suspected. He needs to answer some questions to be able to write a convincing argument.
First of all, the vice president compares the surface of a section of Route 101 with a section of Route 40 in another part of the state. Are these two Routs comparable? What is the circumstance of each Rout’s terrain? Are they hilly or straight? How is the weather in each part of the state? What is the location of these Rout? It’s possible that the section of the Route 40 is located in a less crowded region that has fewer commuting cars or high-weight trucks. In this case, this route would remain in a good condition. Other factors are responsible for a Rout to remain flawless. Bad weather conditions, heavy snow, would cause a route to losing its great condition. Without answering these questions, the author cannot blame Good Intentions Roadway company for their work, and the argument will be unsound.
Moreover, the author compares the two Routs in the two different time periods. Do Good Intentions Roadways have the same appliances and number of laborers as two years ago? Likely, they have improved their machinery and hired new and capable laborers which lead to an outstanding outcome. The author should examine the current condition of Good Intentions Roadways, not its facilities in two years ago. Therefore, the vice president should answer the questions regarding the current condition of Good Intentions Roadways to have better comparison and reach a more logical recommendation.
Finally, the author mentions that Appian Roadways have bought a state-of-the-art paving
machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. Is this new machinery useful for the construction of the new shopping malls access roads? Is the new quality-control manager professional and well-experienced? Perhaps, the newly purchased paving machinery and the quality-control manager would not benefit the shopping malls’ access roads. The vise president should take into consideration that whether this new employee or machinery is matched with their company’s goal or not. Answering these questions will strengthen the argument more.
All in all, the argument, as it stands now, is flawed due to the considerable lack of concrete evidence. The vice president should answer the pointed questions to be able to write an argument that could convince the readers.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 12 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 29 15
No. of Words: 453 350
No. of Characters: 2301 1500
No. of Different Words: 211 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.613 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.079 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.759 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 169 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 128 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 90 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 15.621 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.283 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.172 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.258 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.408 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.094 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, well, at least, 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: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2374.0 2260.96107784 105% => OK
No of words: 451.0 441.139720559 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.26385809313 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.60833598836 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87410517007 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.485587583149 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 698.4 705.55239521 99% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 15.0 22.8473053892 66% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.9942623709 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 81.8620689655 119.503703932 69% => OK
Words per sentence: 15.5517241379 23.324526521 67% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.10344827586 5.70786347227 54% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 8.20758483034 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.295210481054 0.218282227539 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.071894584629 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0717018811136 0.0701772020484 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130274358175 0.128457276422 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0677191044766 0.0628817314937 108% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.1 14.3799401198 77% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.71 48.3550499002 134% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.0 12.197005988 66% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.93 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.78 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 97.0 98.500998004 98% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.0 11.1389221557 72% => OK
text_standard: 8.0 11.9071856287 67% => The average readability is low. Need to imporve the language.
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.