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 above memo, the author argues that if they hire Appian Roadways to construct the rest of the roads of the city then it will not be repaired for at least 4 years. The author supports his argument based on the report which states that the surface section of Route 101, though paved 2 years ago by Good Intention Roadways, is now badly cracked and needed to be reconstructed again, on the other hand, the section of the route, which was constructed by Appian Roadways a few years ago is still in good condition. Furthermore, the author adds the report of purchasing new sophisticated technologies by the Appian Roadways to bolster his argument. However, before evaluating the author’s argument three questions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author compares two different types of construction to support his argument without any necessitate evidence. One may raise questions about the authenticity of the process of using circumstances to predict and generalize others. In other words, were the two parts of the road similar? There is a possibility that the road constructed by the Goodwill Roadway is located in the city area where traffics are more and the road, constructed by the Appine Roadway is located in the more urban area where traffic is less. Then one can not compare two roads. The author does not provide any admissible evidence about the two parts of the roads. If the author can provide more evidence regarding the conditions of the roads then, it will be possible to evaluate the author’s argument to a certain extent otherwise the author’s argument holds no water.
Secondly, the author blames the Goodwill Roadways for the bad condition of the roads. Is it justifiable to obloquy only the construction? The author does not provide any veritable evidence regarding the maintenance of the road. Perhaps a poor management system is also one of the reasons for the bad condition of the roads. If the above scenario is true then the author's argument is seriously weakened. If the author is able to provide more evidence regarding the past record of performance of the Goodwill Roadways, then the author’s argument may have sounded more veritable.
Thirdly, the author argues that since Appine Roadways purchased state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager their quality of work will enhance in the future. A reader may ask questions about the efficacy of the new sophisticated technology. Maybe after using the new technology the quality of the road will worsen. Maybe the cost of the maintenance of the new machines is too much to have profited. Perhaps the new manager is not as capable as the previous one. Then one can not argues that Appine Roadways’s performance will dilate in the future. If the author is able to offer more evince perhaps in the form of a research study, which indicates the effectiveness of the new technology then the author’s argument will be strengthened otherwise the author’s argument is built unreliably.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument that stands now is seriously flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author can answer the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study) then it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that the access roads in the city should be made by the Appian Roadways.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 9 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 7 2
No. of Sentences: 26 15
No. of Words: 568 350
No. of Characters: 2791 1500
No. of Different Words: 228 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.882 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.914 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.753 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 201 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 156 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 118 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.846 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.289 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.731 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.356 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.477 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.131 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 325, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ons for the bad condition of the roads. If the above scenario is true then the aut...
^^
Line 4, column 364, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... If the above scenario is true then the authors argument is seriously weakened. If the ...
^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 510, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'argue'
Suggestion: argue
...e as the previous one. Then one can not argues that Appine Roadways’s performance will...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, so, still, then, third, thirdly, at least, in other words, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 5.0 11.1786427146 45% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 17.0 28.8173652695 59% => OK
Preposition: 76.0 55.5748502994 137% => OK
Nominalization: 33.0 16.3942115768 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2864.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 567.0 441.139720559 129% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05114638448 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87972968509 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87683786042 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.412698412698 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 896.4 705.55239521 127% => 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: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 76.4023625676 57.8364921388 132% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.153846154 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.8076923077 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.07692307692 5.70786347227 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 6.88822355289 174% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0913511460647 0.218282227539 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0272435298823 0.0743258471296 37% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0548849769042 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0594461959571 0.128457276422 46% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0666367593053 0.0628817314937 106% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.01 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.99 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 17.0 12.3882235529 137% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.