The process of doing business may sometimes entail false blames and accusations towards the competitors of a certain company. That is why the reader should accept any claim or suspicious statement made by a firm with a double attention and verify it for veracity. To assess the logical soundness of a vice president's claim, it is crucial to estimate separately each of its parts.
The prime factor to consider is the range of the partners of a building company. It can turn out that Good Intention Roadways is a rival of the one or constructor's main partners. In this case, the connection between the proclaimed accusation and Good Intention Roadways is evident. Probably, the firm that erects shopping malls just intended to undermine Roadways's reputation to benefit its partner. It the assumption is true, the action of a building company is out of business ethics and may seriously weaken the brand image of the company.
The logic of a statement made by vice president may also depend on his inner intentions. He could proclaim the unheard fact in order to attract attention to his personality and gain more popularity than the president of a company. Consequently, the shareholders of the building company would consider him to know more about the building industry than the president and on the next elections vote in his favour. To check this hypothesis, it would be necessary to know the proximity of the nearest Board meeting and the current position and duties of the vice president.
Apart from assumptions on the veracity of a claim, some evidence that can weaken or reinforce the statement should be mentioned. First, in the essence of a statement about the bad cracking of a surface, it would be reasonable to verify the quality of the road by a third party. In this way, with an objective assessment, the public can judge vice president's statement. The second verification of the truthfulness of a claim may lie in the investigation of previous conflicts between the building company and Good Intention Roadways. Were there some misunderstanding between the paving firm and shopping mall constructor, the misrepresentation of the information about Route 101 would be evident. As it follows, even with the naked eye it is possible to reassure about the soundness of the claim.
In conclusion, the statements about the quality of some work or material should always be assessed precisely. Only after figuring out the details of the relationship between arguing companies, the position of a speaker and the actual condition of the object it is possible to define the veracity or falseness of a claim.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- not OK
argument 2 -- not OK
argument 3 -- not OK
----------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: ??? out of 6
Category: Poor Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 435 350
No. of Characters: 2143 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.567 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.926 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.91 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 157 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 130 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.75 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.673 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.4 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.534 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.093 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, first, if, may, second, so, third, apart from, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 4.0 13.6137724551 29% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 23.0 28.8173652695 80% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 55.5748502994 130% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 16.3942115768 146% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2192.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03908045977 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96918956439 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 210.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48275862069 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 684.0 705.55239521 97% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => 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: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.0431157732 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 109.6 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.75 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.0 5.70786347227 70% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => 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: 0.16596563976 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0479561281563 0.0743258471296 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0400497441357 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0804942988434 0.128457276422 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0585358631114 0.0628817314937 93% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 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: 11.95 12.5979740519 95% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.63 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 109.0 98.500998004 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.