The memo passage by the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country recommends hiring the Appian Roadways company to construct the access roads for all their shopping malls. To support this statement, the author mentions that one of Appian Roadways' paved Roadways have been in good shape for more than four years. However, the surface of a section of Route 101 paved by Good Intentions Roadways has become badly cracked after just two years. Moreover, the author of the memo vindicates the argument by mentioning that the Appian Roadways recently purchased a state-of-the-art paving machinery and hired a new quality-control manager. These series of evidences have led the author to believe that the Appian Roadways construction company will now provide better performances and predict that their achieved roads will not have to be repaired for at least four years. While on the surface these arguments appear to be cogent, on further scrutiny, we can see that it is rife with fallacies and assumptions and still leaves some unspoken questions that should be addressed.
Firstly, the author claims that Appian Roadways' constructed Roads last longer than Appian Roadways' roads by comparing the shape of the two roads located in different part of the state. This argument is questionable considering the fact that these roads could be located in different atmospheric conditions. Moreover, the section of Route 101 constructed by Good Intentions Roadways was maybe built in a cold area and since in cold weather, asphalt tends to become brittle. It is natural that the road develops cracks and potholes. Thus, a fair comparison cannot be established and the author needs to provide more information about the conditions under which the roads were built.
Secondly, the memo is basing its recommendation using a small-sample that evaluates the shape of only one road per construction company and claims that one of these road companies has performance superiority over the other. This fact question the credibility of the author's argument and a large-scale survey must be conducted in order to obtain trustworthy results.
Thirdly, the author insinuates that the Appian Roadways will be providing better performances after purchasing a new paving machinery and hiring a new quality-control manager. However, this argument does not promote the author's opinion because it might be true that the Appian Roadways achieved higher performances with the old manager but, it does not directly means that it will do the same with the new manager. Also, the new purchased machine can be very expensive and therefore, the new cost of the provided services by Appian Roadways company will increase making us wonder if the quality-cost ratio of this company is better than the Good Intentions Roadways. Consequently, unless more information is provided about the new machine and manager, we cannot be certain about their performances.
Finally, it may be said that the author has failed to make a convincing recommendation because of lack of statistical data and proper reasoning. The argument ends with an unrealistic optimistic conclusion based on superficial observations that is likely to be incorrect. However, if the author has answered the above questions clearly, his or her recommendation would have been more convincing.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 532 350
No. of Characters: 2771 1500
No. of Different Words: 248 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.803 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.209 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.833 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 208 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 158 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 113 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 72 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.6 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.212 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.545 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.105 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 235, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'questions'.
Suggestion: questions
...e superiority over the other. This fact question the credibility of the authors argument...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 267, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...is fact question the credibility of the authors argument and a large-scale survey must ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 221, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ver, this argument does not promote the authors opinion because it might be true that t...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 363, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[3]
Message: The verb 'does' requires base form of the verb: 'mean'
Suggestion: mean
...e old manager but, it does not directly means that it will do the same with the new m...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, finally, first, firstly, however, if, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, while, at least
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.6327345309 117% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 58.0 55.5748502994 104% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2832.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 531.0 441.139720559 120% => OK
Chars per words: 5.33333333333 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80035803286 4.56307096286 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91749550093 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 248.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.467043314501 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 858.6 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 22.8473053892 114% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.9379546915 57.8364921388 83% => OK
Chars per sentence: 141.6 119.503703932 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.55 23.324526521 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.75 5.70786347227 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.20758483034 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.14845282085 0.218282227539 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0534840906066 0.0743258471296 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0865180612352 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0760220715506 0.128457276422 59% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0804032654675 0.0628817314937 128% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.9 14.3799401198 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.3550499002 93% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.197005988 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.93 12.5979740519 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.1389221557 111% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.