The first question that needs to be answered is where geographically the section of Route 101 was built in relation to Route 40. If it were further north than Route 40 this could explain why. The northern part of this region could receive more inclement weather and contribute to the faster deterioration of the road there. Measuring the precipitation and temperature across a window of time on both routes would help to evaluate the recommendation to see if this variable has any influence.
Another question that would need to be answered is if there is a great deal of elevation change on Route 101. If there is, this could mean that more repairs are needed to account for soil erosion having a negative effect on the road quality. The measurement of soil type and elevation change would assist in seeing if this would be a notable factor of the recommendation.
The next question that would need to be answered is what kind of vehicles are being driven on both roads. If the average weight of a vehicle is greater on either route, this would need to be examined to see if it has a noticeable impact. For example, if more semis and farm machinery are driven on Route 101, this could be correlated with faster road wear. An answer to this question would help to evaluate the traffic that a particular road would be experiencing and how this exacerbates road quality.
Lastly, we might also examine whether the new equipment that Appian Roadways has purchased has had a negative impact on the productivity of the company. For example, if the workers have required extra training and are not using the equipment at its full potential.
In expounding the questions above, measuring the weather in both locations would help evaluate the recommendation by controlling for this variable. Taking note of the geography of both roads would also further the effort to verify or repudiate the statement that the vice president made. Finally, measuring the frequency and weight of traffic in both stretches of road would also elucidate whether Appian Roadways is truly the better company over Good Intentions Roadways.
Essay evaluation report
argument 1 -- OK
argument 2 -- OK but duplicated to argument 1
argument 3 -- OK but duplicated to argument 1
argument 4 -- OK but also need to argue:
and hired a new quality-control manager.
----------------
Need to argue against the conclusion always. For this topic it is:
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.
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1723 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.813 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.685 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 119 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 90 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 62 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 3.655 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.812 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.343 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.589 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.069 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, lastly, so, for example, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.6327345309 107% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 13.6137724551 59% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1765.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 358.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.93016759777 5.12650576532 96% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34981470047 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72472395995 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.497206703911 0.468620217663 106% => OK
syllable_count: 547.2 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 26.8816125586 57.8364921388 46% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.3125 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.375 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.9375 5.70786347227 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 5.25449101796 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.0604841124761 0.218282227539 28% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0251863730471 0.0743258471296 34% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.03368172988 0.0701772020484 48% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0370387166561 0.128457276422 29% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.029257710324 0.0628817314937 47% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.3799401198 90% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.61 12.5979740519 92% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 78.0 98.500998004 79% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => 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.